












,0v\ 










^. 



,.'^^• 



.4^ 



v.>. 







i?r.. 






•''<*> 










•^ 




.1^' 






■-. "-^^ 


d> 


^ 






1 » » • 


°^ 










>■■ 




^_' 




V 










\ 


.'^' 


-m 


£\i 


p"-; 


.^'■%. 



.v^. 


















■-.- ■\ ■ 



c; ^ 



. ^^ 6 " • • * <^^ 



•^^0^ 






:/ 









^^i- - 



^^^c,^' 
.V^. 



■-^-^ 



r,^ 



v ^^^ -^e^'V"^/ V^ "^^ 
















"-. 




1^' ^^. c^ <*M." 



SPEECH 
WILLIAM C. RIVES, OF VIRGINIA, 



THE TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 



DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, AUGUST 17 AND 19, I&12. -.«i.'^ 






4.7 



Mr. RIVES said that the Committee on Foreign 
.elations, lo which the treaty had been referred, 
tn having been able, from the shortness of the time 
I lowed by the now advanced stage of the session, 
Qd the consequent necessity of early action on the 
ibject, to make a formal and wtiilen report, it de- 
olved on him, as the organ of the committee, to 
ate the views and considerations by which the 
jramittee had been influenced, in recommending 
p the Senate to give the constitutional sanction of 
leir "advice and consent" to its ratification. He 
;gged leave lo say, in the outset, that, in forming 
leir judgment on the grave question submitted to 
lem, the committee had felt themselves bound, by 
le most solemn oi all obligations, to discard from 
leir minds every consideration but such as apper- 
.ined to the true interest and honor of their coun- 
y. They had felt that it would be to betray the 
ust reposed in them by the Senate, and to show 
lemselves unworthy of the confidence of the coun- 
y, if they could, for a moment, permit themselves, 
I pursuit of party ol)jects, or under the influence of 
i^rsonal or political prejudices, to turn aside iVom 
le Tialional question, to inquire by whom the treaty 
ad been negotiated, or whose name stood sub- 
:ribed to it. They have looked to the treaty in 
self, isolated Irom every invidious reference to 
jrsons or parties; and have pronounced upon its 
;cepiance or rejection as, in their best judgment, 
iC interests and honor of the nation demand. 
The stipulations of the treaty embrace three dis 
let objects: an exact and permanent definition of 
e boundaries, where they had been the subject of 
)ubt or dispute, between the territories of the Uni- 
d Stales and the adjacent provinces of Great Brit- 
n; a plan of co-operation for the more efleclual 
ippression of the African slave-trade; and an 
. jreement for the mutual surrender, in certain 
ises, of criminals fugitive from justice. The 
rst of these objects, from its intimate connexion 
ith the tranquillity of the frontier, and the peace 
' the two countries — on several recent occasions 
:posed to imminent hazard of interruption, from 
trusions on the disputed territory, and the conflict- 
8 jurisdictions exercised over it — nalurally occu- 
es i^e foreground of the treaty. 
The aierits of the controversy respecting our 
orlheasttrn boundary, and the respective claims 
id argameh'.s of the two parties in regard to it, 
•e loo well kno\Tia to the Senate, (said JVlr. R.,) to 
quire any recapitu'.^lion of them at my hands, 
brief retrospect of the history of the controversy, 



however, may be necessary to enable the Senate to 
comprehend the position of the question at the mo- 
ment when the negotiations which terminated in 
this treaty were entered upon. 

The second article o( the definitive treaty of 
peace of 17b3, describes the Nonheastern boundary 
of the United States as follows : " Beginning at the 
northwest angle of Nova Scoiia, to wit: that angle 
which is formed by a line drawn due north from 
the source of the St. Croix river lo the highlands; 
along the said highlands, which divide those rivers 
that empty themselves into ihe river St. Lawrence 
from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to 
ihe northwesiernmost head of Connecticut river;" 
and then, pursuing the description of the bounda- 
ries of the United States around their whole terri- 
tory, on the north, the west, and the south, it re- 
turns to iho eastern boundary of Mnine in the fol- 
lowing words: "East by a line lobe drawn along 
the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth, 
in the Bay of Fundy, lo its source; and from its 
source, directly north to the aforesaid highlands, 
which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic 
ocean from those which fall into the river Si. Law- 
rence." 

Nothing could afibrd a more striking evidence 
of the extremely defective knowledge of the geog- 
raphy of the country in question, which existed at 
the time of the signature of the treaty of peace, 
than the fact, that, in the very first year succeeding 
the conclusion of the treaty, a serious controversy 
arose between the high contracting parties as to 
which was this river St. Croix, here called for as 
a natural boundary between their adjacent posses- 
sions. There were three rivers emptying them- 
selves into Passamaquoddy bay, a part of the Bay 
of Pimdtj, (as it was subsequently formally declared 
to be,*) each one of which, it seemed, had, some 
lime or other, passed under the name of the St. 
Croix. This territorial covicdy of errors, 1 ike all other 
questions of disputed boundary, was, on several 
occasions, near producing tragical resiili.'=, by em- 
broiling the authorities and population adjacent to 
the comroverted limiLs. The most eastern river 
was claimed by the United States as the true St. 
Croix— the western by Great Britain. Finally, 
after lowering over the peace of the frontiers for 
ten years, this controversy was put in a train of 
amicable adjustment by the treaty of 1794, (com- 
monly called Jay's treaty,) which provided for the 

'By the fourth article of the troaty of Ghent. 



appointment of joint commissioners to determine 
which was the river truly inieiiUed under ilie name 
of the St. Croix, in the treaty ol peace. The com- 
mis>ioners met, and in 171*':* closed their delibera- 
tions, by declaring an mierniediaie river, called the 
Scooduic, to be tiie true St. Croix of the treaty; 
which has been, accortliiisjiy, ever since recognised 
and obsci ved as the actual boundary of the Uui cd 
States in that quarter, and to that extent. 

In a very short tune after this portion of the North- 
eastern boundary was ascertained and esiablistied, 
new ditliculiies and uncertainties arose in follow 
iiig it out, according to the terms of the ticaty of 
peace. The decision of the commissioners, under | 
the treaty of IT'J-l, in identifying the true nvcr Si. 
Croix, and in fixing its source, had esiablislied the 
Urtniniis a ijuo, from which the boundary in ques- 
tion was to be run. But the terminus ad qucm, to 
which It was to be continued — to wit: the highlands\ 
dividing the tributary waters of the St. Lawrence I 
and the Atlauiic, whicii lay due north iroin the 
source of the St. Croix— remained to be a'^ceriained; 
and when th/ij were ascertained, the northwestern- 
jjioit head ol the Connecticiil river, (another termi- 
nus to which the boundary along bke said kighlandi 
was to be continued,) was also to be identified and 
established. Both of these termini were supposed 
to be involved in doubt by the actual geography and 
physical conformation of ilie country. Tlie iiigli- 
lands described in the treity were said to have no 
definite, existence in nature; and the various sources 
01 the Connecticut river, and their relative position, 
produced confusion in determining which was ihe 
true northwesterninost source referred to by the 
treaty of peace. For the ''adjustment of these un- 
certainties," by the agency of a joint commission 
formed on the model of that of Jay's treaty in re- 
gard to the St. Croix river, a convention was con- 
cluded by iMr. Rulus King with Lord Hawkesbury, 
in May, 1803, under the instiuctions of Mr. Madi- 
son, then Secretary of Staie. This couveniion re- 
ceived the unanimous advice and consent of the 
Senate to its ratification, with the exception of its 
fifth article, relating to the northwestern bounda- 
ry between the Lake of the Woods and the Missis- 
sippi river, which, it was apprehended, might con- 
flict with tiie territorial claims of the United Slates 
nndcrthe treaty for the purchase of Louisiana from 
France; which had been concluded twelve days 

Erevious to the convention with Lord Hawkes- 
ury, but which fact was not known to either of 
the negotiators at the signature of the latter. The 
change thus made by the Senate not being acceded 
to by the British Government, the convention failed 
to lake effect. 

Thus sUjod the question in regard to the North- 
ea.slern bounuarv, without any new arrangement 
to obviate or adjust the uncertainties which had 
arisen, until the treaty of Ghent. By the fifth 
article of that treaty, it was agreed that two com- 
mi-ssioners should be appointed — one by each par- 
ly — to ascertain and determine wIrmc is the point 
of intersection, or angle called the northwest anyle 
of Nova Scotia, formed by a line drawn due noiih 
from the source ol the St. Croix to the higlil;inds, 
a.s described in the troaiy of peace; and also the 
north westernmost head of Conncciiriit liver; ami 
to caiLse the entire boundary, from the source ol 
ihfl St. Croix to the river St. Lawrence, to he sur 
vcyed and marked, according to th<' provisions of 
the said treaty ol peace; and if these commission- 
ers should differ in opinion on the matters referred 



to them, then their differences were to be referred 
to some friendly sovereign or Slate, to be named 
for the purpose, whose decision should be final and 
conclusive on all the matters .so referred. Thecom- 
mi.ssioners apnoinied under the treaty of Ghent 
havingradically dilleretl in their views of the true 
boundary, a conveniion was entered into between 
the two Governments, m September, 1827, for car- 
rj'ing into effect the stipulated reference to some 
friendly sovereign; agreeing to proceed, in concert, 
to the choice of such friendly sovereign, and reg- 
nlating various details connected with the arbitra- 
tion. The King of the Netherlands was, by th-; 
concurrent act of the two Governments, subse- 
quently chosen as the arbiter; and, in January, 
1831, he pronounced his award — declaring, in ef- 
fect, that neither the line claimed by the United 
States, to the north of the river St. John, nor that 
claimed by Great Britain, to the south of that riv- 
er, fulfilled the description of the boundary con- 
tained in the treaty of peace; that the stipulalions of 
the treaty were too vague and indeterminate toad- 
mil of satisfactory execution, when applied to the 
actual topography of the country; and that, there- 
fore, "it willbe suitnble (z7 C07l^■^c7^rfre) to adopt as 
the boundary of the two States" a line which 
drawn from the source of the St. Croix till it inter- 
sect the river St. John, shall continue along that 
river to the moiiih of the St. Francis; thence along 
the St. Francis, to its .southwesleriimost head; and 
I hence, bv a due-'.vest course, to ihe line claimed by 
the United States. 

This award of the King of the Netherland.s, in 
proposing the adoption of a new boundary, was 
considered as a departure from the question sub- 
mitted for his decision by the terms of the refer- 
ence, and was held, therefore, not to he obligatory 
on the parties. The Senate of the United States, 
before whom the award was laid by the President 
for their advice on the subject, expressed an opin- 
ion unfavorable to its acceptance; and from that 
time down to the special mission of Lord Ashbur- 
lon, a series of halting and abortive negotiations 
has been going on between the two GovernmenUs, 
terminating in nothing, and leaving this disturb- 
ing controversy as far as ever from sctilenient; th« 
peace of the two countries, in the mean time, ex- 
posed to ntjiHual danger of interruption, by collis- 
ions on tlie debatable frontier. 

Mr. R. said he had thus briefly retraced the his- 
tory of this controvtrsj', and exhibited the mutual 
proceedings of the two Governments m regard to 
It — not with any purpose of weakening or impugn- 
ing the just title of the United States to the territo- 
ry claimed by thein as being within the limits es- 
tablished by the treaty of peace; on the contrary, 
he felt in his own mind a clear conviction of the 
justice and validity of the American claim as 
resting on the terms of the treaty. He believed 
that the bonndary claimed by the United Stales 
fulfilled the literal description contained in the 
in-aty, and ihai it was the only boundary which 
did iullil that description. He had, therefore, 
heartily concurred in the resolution unanimoush' 
passed in this Ivnly, four ye.irs ago, affirming r.ir 
conviction of the right of the United States i-iider 
the treaty nfpeai'e; and such, he was autho''ized to 
say, was still the opinion eiiiertained ly every 
member (d" the coinmitice. But, while this was 
the opinion of the committee and < '''he Senate, and, 
without doubt, of a large mn^Tity of the citizens 
rf the United States who hsve investigated the sub- 



: K^°. \i 5 ^ 



8 



ject, it is impossible for lis, lookinp: at tbc pnhlicl 
and solemn acts of the nation through i^ ncog- 
niseil organs, now to stan(J uncompromisingly on 
the grounil of rigkL We have admitted, over 
and over again, thai the qiifslion is one open lo 
dmibf, and coiUroversij; and, as •<nch, we have agi eed. 
to make it a subjocl o( arliUnilion; ami ihc opinion 
of the arbiter, however wanting in legal obligation, 
has yet been pronounced before the world against 
our claim. 

The Senate has spen, from the review jnst 
presented, that, not only by the treaty of Giient, ami 
the subsequent convention of 1827, had we abundon- 
ed the ground of clear ami mcPiitentaUe righi; but 
that, at a long antecedent period, by iliecoiiveniiim 
of 1803 between Mr. King and Lord Hawkesbuiy, 
(an arrangement tmanimiRjsly confirmed by the 
Senate, solar as the Northeastern boundary was 
concerned,) we had agreed to bring our claims into 
litigation before a mixed tribunal of arbitrament, 
to be specially constituted (or the purpose. The 
President of the United States, [Mr. Jcfierson,] 
in conimunicating the conclusion of that arrange- 
ment to Congress, accompanied it with the lb! ow- 
ing pregnant remarks: 

" A furlliei knowledge o( thagrouml in ihe northeastern nri^ I 
northwestern anijlc!! pf ilie TIniiLiI States hiis evinced that i lie 
boundaries (■.sui''lisiied by the treaty of Paris, between the Brit- 
ish terriiorit^s iind ours ip. tliose |iHrts, were too impnr/'Ctly de- 
scribed t'l be susc-pUble of execution. Ii has, thtreioro, been 
thoii^lii. woriliy of aitention, fur preserving and cherishing the 
harmony and nsefnl initTcour;;e subsisting lieiween tlietwona- 
tions, to remove, 'ly liinc'y arranieinenia, wliat unfavorable 
incidents might othervsise render ;i ground nf future misnnder- 
standing. A convention hns, therefore, been entered into, which 
provides for a practicable demarcation of those limits, ti the 
satisfaction of both parties." 

Mr. Madison, in the instructions given by him 
to Mr. King for the negotiation of the convention, 
used language of similar, and not less significant 
import: 

'•In fixing," said he, "the point at which the line is to ter- 
minate, and which is referred teas the northwest angle of ^ova 
Scotia, the ditruniliy arises from a reference of the treaty ol 
1783 tonhe hish ands,' which it is now fomid hare no defi- 
nite existence. To remove this difTiculiy, no better expedient 
occurs than lo provide for the appointment of a third commie 
sioner, as in arlicli- five of the trea'y of 1791; and to anlhoriz" 
the three lo determine on a piint to be substituted for the de 
scription m ttie second article of the treaty of 1783, having due 
regard to the general idea that the line ought to terminate on the 
elevated ground dividing the rivers falling into the Atlantic, 
from those einptyi[>g themselves into the St. Lawrence. The 
commissioners may also be authorized to s«6s<!7t//e for the de- 
scription of the boundary between the point so fi.ved and the 
northwesternmcHt head of the Connecticut river — namely, a line 
'along the said liisldands;" — such a referenc-' to inierinediate 
sources of rivers, or other ascertained or ascertainable points. 
to be connected hi/ stniight tini's, ii3 will adinit of easy and 
accurate execuiion herealter, and as will best comport with the 
apparent intention of the treaty of 1783." 

Here we have an instruction from one of the most 
cautious, as aell as able and enlightened statesmen, 
that ever presided over the department of our for- 
eign relations, expressly authorizing the minister 
of the United States, on the srround of the imprac- 
ticability of finding the limits described in the 
treaty of 1783, to enter into an arrangement to svb- 
stitule — not, as has been said, a pfltn^ only, but — a 
continuous and long line of boundary between that 
point and another, for the lines and angles described 
in th<e treaty. 

After these various and repeated acts of the na- 
tional amhorities, acknowledging, in one form or 
another, the rtoubts and difficulties which stood in 
the way of the actual demarcation o\ the boundary 
in question, according to the provisions of the treaty 
of 1783, it seems to the committee too late in the 



day, consistently with a proper regard for the peace 

of nations and the opinion of the world, to plant 
ourselves now sternly and inllexibly on the ground 
of a clear, manifest, and incuntrovirtil/ic right to 
the preci.se line of boundary we claim. 11 the 
honor of the country, as is now a.sserled, dcmandad 
that the .mmmum jua of our claims, in regard to 
the disputed boundary, should have been rigornusiy 
insisted on in the laie negotiation, then that honor 
lias been long since irretrievably prostrated in the 
dust. It was sacrificed by the treaty of l7iM, by the 
ctmvention of 1803, by the Ghent negotiations in 
1811, by the arbitration arrangeipent of 1827; it 
was betrayed bv Washington, Jefferson, and Madi- 
son; and iraviplcd under loot by every successive ad- 
ministration that has been charged with the forcigu 
relations of the country, from the peace of 17S3 to 
the present day. How would even our hero Presi- 
dent, the venerable Jackson — at whose lofty tone in 
the foreign intercourse of the nation the world 
stood surprised— how would even he stand, it tried 
by this new standard of diplomatic chivalryl Du- 
ring the period of his administration, repeated en- 
tries were made on the disputed territory by agents 
of the neighboring British provincial authorities, 
who arrested our citizens, seized their property, 
and tran.sported both one and the other into a for- 
eign jurisdiction. Did he summon the nation to 
arms for this hostile invasion of our territory'l — as 
it assuredly was, if the principle now so cheaply 
put forward, of the incontrovertible justice and va- 
lidity of our title to the boundary we claimed, be 
correct. No, sir; he knew that, however strong 
might be our conviction of the justice of our claim, 
there were two sides to the question — the adver- 
sary claim resting on grounds which we had, by 
the most solemn national acts, recognised to be 
fair topics of discussion; and that we could not 
justify ourselves to the moral sense of mankind, in 
rashly taking the decision of the question into our 
own hands. 

The truth is, that no administration has ever 
shown a greater disposition to settle this question 
with Great Britain, on principles oi compromise and 
concession, than did that of General Jackson. It is 
well known that his opinions and inclinations were 
decidedly in favor of the acceptance of the award 
of the King of the Netherlands; and that the objec- 
tions of the State of Maine, and the action of the 
Senate on the subject, alone prevented his acceding 
to the new conventional line proposed by that 
award. When, from the.se causes, the adjustment 
under the mediation of the King of the Nether- 
lands failed. President Jackscn immediately sought, 
bv a provisional arrangement with the State of 
Maine, for an| indemnity to be paid her by the 
Uniteil States in other lands, to arm himself with 
the ncces,sary sanction of her assent, to agree with 
Great Britain upon a new boundary line, in place 
of that of the treaty of 1783. An arrangement to 
that effect was actually entered into by three distin- 
guished public functionaries duly authorized by 
the President, with three other gentlemen as agents 
of the Slate of Maine; but not being ratified by the 
Legislature of the State, when submitted to them, 
the negotiation, upon thnt basis, was necessarily 
abandoned. Being thus forced back upon new ef- 
forts to seule and ascertain the boundary as it exist- 
ed under the treaty of peace. General Jackson 
authorized a proposition of extreme liberality to 
be submitted to the British minister. Hitherto, in 
all the discussions upon thes ubject, as well as in the 



explorations and surveys made to determine the 
lKK(nd:iry, one thing had been assumed as certain 
and fixed— {o wii : that, Irom the source of the St. 
Croijt, the boundary, in the express language ol 
itLe treaty, should be run dirccthj lunlh lu ilie Aii;k- 
funds, &c.; and ttiis had been invariably considered 
Q intiin piUur of the argument in support of the 
American claim. General Jackson, in his earnest 
doireti) bring this long-pemiing controversy to an 
ijiuicable termination, and with an accommi'dating 
and lib-ral spirit which was emphatically acknowl- 
edged by the British Government, now proposed, 
throush Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane, succes 
sKely Secretaries of State, that the commissioners 
aijiuuld be no longer rotricieil by the due-north, hne 
irj determining the true boundary ; but, <^i.sca?v/i?ig- 
tbat line, if they thought proper, they should be at li- 
berty to seek the highlands described in the treaty, to 
Oie ircst of the meridian of the source of the Si. 
Croix, and in any pari of the disputed territory w^riA 
orsou^/i of the river St. John. WJiat seemed mainly 
Ct^ produce the hesitation of the British Government 
ii^ acceding to this proposition, was, ihedoubi enter- 
tained by it whether the assent of the State of Maine 
(which hadnot, and probably could not, be obtained) 
wpuld not be as necessary to give etl'ect to an ar- 
raqgement on this basis, as on that of an avowed 
conventional line. 

Ir appears to the committee, therefore, in looking 
back to the public and solemn acts of the Govern- 
ment, and of its successive administrations, that 
the' .ne has passed, if it ever existed, when we 
could be justified in making the precise line of 
boundary claimed by us the subject of a swc jwa 
noK of negotiation, or of the ultima ratio of an 
assertion by force. Did a second aibilration, then, 
afl'ord the prospect of a more satisfactory result! 
Thi^ expedient seemed to be equally rejected by 
all parties — by the United Slates, by Great Britain, 
and by .he State of Maine. If such an alternative 
should be contemplated by any one as preferable 
to the arrangement which has been made, it is lit 
to Ijear in mind the risk and uncertainly, as well 
as liie inevitable delay and expense, incident to that 
inode of decision. We have already seen, in the 
instance of the arbitration by the King of the 
Netherlands, how much weight a tribunal of that 
sort IS inclined to give to the argument of conve- 
nience, and a supposed int-ention on the part of the 
tiegotiaiors of ihe treaty of \~H'i, against the literal 
and positive terms employed by the instrument in 
its d j-i'.ription of limits. Is there no danger, in the 
event of another arbitration, that a farther research 
into the public archives of Europe might bring to 
lightsome embarrassing (even though apocryphal) 
document, to throw anew shade of plausible iloubt 
on the clearness of our ti:le, in the view of a sov- 
cign arbiterl Such a document has already been 
communicated to the committee; and I feel it (said 
Mr. R.) tube my Any to lay it before the Senate, 
that thi-v may fully appreciate its bearin^js, and de- 
termirif for themselves the weight and importance 
vliich belong to it. It is due to the learned and 
distinguished gentleman, (Mr. Jared Sparks of Bos- 
ton,) by whom the doiument referred to was dis- 
Covcri'd in the archives of France, while pursuing 
bis laborious and inielligfni researches ccmnected 
w.th the history of our own country, that the ac- 
count of it should be given in his own words, as 
Contained in a communication addrcsM'd by him to 
the Department o( State. I proceed, therefore, to 
read from that communication: 



I ' While pursuing my researches among the roliiminous pa- 
per* rflaiiiis; 10 the American Revolulion in ihe Aichives des 
Affaires /■Jirangerea in Parie, I found in one of the bourul 
Tolumes an original Idler Inim Dr. Franklin to Count de Ver- 
gennes, of which the following is an exact lianscript: 

'Passy, Uec.mb<rC, 1782. 
"Sm: I have the honor of returning lierewiih the map your 
Kxci-llency (<ent me yesterday. 1 have marked wiihastrongred 
line, nccording to your desire, the limiiH of ih^ tinned t^Slatesi, 
;<(< seeded in che prelimiiiarifS between the Biilish and American 
plonipoieutiaries. 

"With great re3()ecl, I am, <Vr., 

"«. FRANKLIN." 
"Thia letter was written six days after the preliminaries were 
signed; itiid if we could procure ilie identical map menli''ned 
liy Franklin, y would Heem to afford conclusive evi ler.ce aa to 
ihe iiicaniiig adixi-d hy the commisnioriers to the language of 
the ireuiy on ihe eubjeci of the Ixmud men. Y'Hi may well sup- 
pose lliai I lost no tune in makine iinpiity fur the map, not 
fliiulitiog that It wiMild confirm all my pieviuus opinions re- 
spi Cling ihe validity of our claim. In the geogra[iliical de- 
parimcntof the Archives are aixiy thousand maps anil chai is; 
but so we:l arranged wi h catalogues and indexes, that anyone 
of ihem maybe easily found. Alier a little lesearch in the 
American divKi<in, with ihe i<id of the krcpcv, I came upon a 
map of North America, by D'AnvdIe, daied 1746, in size 
i abi. lit ei»hieen inches squiie, on which wa« drawn a ulroiig 
I red line lUrousihoMl the cniirc bonndiiy of the Uni;ed rstaies, 
I answering precisely lo Franklin's iles'criiuion. The line is 
j bild and dial inci in every pari, made with red ink, andap|Mirent- 
ly drawn with a hair-pencil, or a pen wiiha blunt point. There 
I i.< no other coloring on any part of the map. 
I '■Imagine my siirpii.Hi^ on discovering that this line runs whol- 
ly south of the Si. John's, and beiwei-n the head waters of tliut 
river and ihose o( the Penobscot and Ivenncbec. In shor', it is 
ex.icily the line now coniended for by Oreat Britain, except 
that It concedes inore Ihan is claimed. The north line, after de- 
parting from the source of the St. Croix, insu- i<l of proceeding 
to Mars Hill, stops farslmrt "{ iliat point, and turns nlf lo the 
west, so as to leave tm the British sidi: all the streams which 
flow into the St. John's, between the source of the St. Cioix 
and Mars Hill. It is evident that the line, (rom the St Croix lo 
the Canadian highlands, is intended to exclude ull Ihe vatera 
running into the St. John's. 

"Tnere is no pnsltive proof that tliismapis actually the one 
marked by Franklin; yet, ujjonany other supposition, it wouU 
be dlfTicult to explain ihe circnmstancesof iis agreeing so per- 
fectly with his description, and of iis being pirserved in the 
place where it would naturally be deposited by Count de Ver 
gennes. I also found another map in ihe Archives, on whi. h 
the saine boundary was traced in a dotted red line witha pen, 
apparently copied frmn the other. 

"I enclose herewith a map of Maine, on which I have drawD 
a strong black line, corre3i)onding with the red one above men- 
tioned." 

I am far from inlimaling (said Mr. Rives) that 
the documents discovered by Mr. Sparks, curious 
and well worthy of consideration as they undoubt- 
edly are, are of weight sufficient lo shake the title 
o( the United Stales, founded on the positive lan- 
guage of the treaty of peace. But they could not 
fail, in the event of another reference, lo give in- 
creased confidence and emphai^is to the preicnsions 
of Great Britain, and lo exert a coricsponding in- 
fluence upon the mind of the arbiter. It is worth 
while, in this connexion, to turn to what Lord 
Ashburlon has said, in one of his communications 
to Mr. Webster, when explaining his views of the 
position of the highlands described in the treaty: 

"My inspection of ihe maps, and my exandnalion of ihe docu- 
ments," says hii" Lordsldp, "lead me to a very sirong conviction 
lliat Ibe hieblands •lUilemploled by ihc negotiaior^ of the treaty 
were lb.- only highliiiids then known toiliem— o( the hemlnf the 
Prnohneol, K'nnrhec, and the rirrra tnst uf the Si Croix; 
.ii,d that they dill mil precisely know how the norili line fom 
ihe St. Croix would strike them; and if it were not my wish lo 
shorten thisdiscussiiin, I bnltcvea very good argument might be 
drawn from the words of the irenly in proof of ihis. In ibe ne 
ffnii.iiioni Willi Mr. Livingston, and afterwards wUh Mr. 
MrLanr, this view feenied lo prevail; and, as you .ire aware, 
iheic were proposals toseaich for On-ae highlami" lo ihe west, 
where alone, I believe, they will bo found loan" wer pel (erily the 
d.-HCnpllon of Ihe ircaiy. If Ihis qurs'^n should unfortu- 
ndlrly f;cj to a furtlicr rtfermcr, I should by no mfans 
drnpair of finding tome confirirfJlion of this riite of the 
cojie." 



It is for the Senate, to consider (added Mr. 
RiVF.s) whether tliere woiikl not be much ri>k (j| 
iiilroducmg new coriiplications and einbairass- 
meiils in this eontrovoisy, by leaving it open (or 
another liiisjated reference; and if the Britisli Gov 
erntiieni — sin)nj3;ly prepossessed, as its minister tell 



eastern, and northwestern frontiers of the United 
Slates, was ex(cedinf,'ly imperfect at the lime the' 
attempt was made to define these boundaries in ihc 
treaty of peace of llH'.i, is adiniiled by our whole 
dipioiiiaiic iiisiory. Kxclusive of the early contro-' 
versies respecting the true river St. Croix, and ihe' 



us it is, with the justice of iis claims — would not extension of our boundary Iroin the northwestern 



find what it would naturally consider a persuasive 
"coiilirnialion of its view of the case" in documents, 
such as those encountered by IVlr. Sparks in liis 
historical researches in the archives ot F'lance. 

A map lias been vnuntin^lv paraded here, from 
Mr Jelferson's collection, in the zeal of opposition, 
(without taking: time to see what it was,) to con- 
front an<) invalidate the map found by Mr. Sparks 
in the Foreign OHiceat Pmi ; but, tlie moment it is 
examined, it is found to sustain, by the most pre- 
cise and remartiable coriespomlence in every fea- 
ture, the map communicated by Mr. Sparks. The 
Senator who produced it, could see nothing but 



point of the Lake o( the Woods to the river MissiV 
sippi, (buth ol whicli arose from the imperfect or er- 
roneous notions of Ihe f,'eo'_'raphy ofthe country ex- 
isting at the conclusion of ihe treaty of peace,) the 
remarkable fact, that as many as lour boards of cora- 
inis^ioners were constituted by the treaty of Ghent, 
more than thirty years afier the definitive treaty of- 
peace, to settle and determine an equal number of 
disputed boundary lines on the northern frontier of 
ihe United Stales, from Passamaquoddy Bay lo the ' 
Lake of the Woods, is in itself pregnant evidence 
of the necessarily imperfect description of limits 
contained in the treaty of peace. From the want 



the microscopic dotted line running o(i" in a north- ot known and recognised landmarks, or familiat 
easterly direction; but the moment other eyes were I natural monuments, in a country then unpeopled 
applied to it, there was f und. in bold relief, aland uue.tplored, the negotiators' of the treaty of 
strong red line, indicating the limits of the United peace were compelled to act very much in the 
States according to the treaty of peace, and con- 1 dark, and to substitute, for a plain reference to 
ciding, miniiely and exactly, with the boundary j known and familiar objects, a general descriplioa 



traced on the map of Mr. Sparks. That this red 
line, and not tiie hardly visible doited line, was in- 
tended to represent the" limits of the United States 
according to the treaty of peace, is conclusively 
shown by the circumstance, that the red line is 
drawn on the map all around ihe exterior boundary 
of the United State.--; — through the middle ol the 
Northern Lakes, thence through the Long Lake and 
the Rainy Lal;e to the Lake of the Woods; and 
from the western extremity of the Lake of the 
Woods to the river Mississippi; and along that 



iiniis, which has given rise to doubts and atgvH 
meiits, more or less plausible, as to the boundaries 
really intended, or mo?-\. nea.rhj described under the 
terms emploved in ihe treaty.' So long as the dis- 
cussion shall continue to be conducted on its origi- 
nal grounds, the same doubts and difficulties which, 
for now sixty years since the achievement of oui 
national independence, have prevented the defini- 
tive adjustment of our limits, will continue to env- 
barra.ss and defeat a .settlement of the questioa. 
Some new mode of solving the controversy, there* 



river, tothe point where the boundary ofthe United fore, has become imperiously necessary. 
States, according to the treaty of peace, leaves it; 
and thence, by its easterly course, to the mouth ofthe 
St, Mary's, on the Atlantic. 

Here, then, is a most remarkable and unforeseen 
confirmation ofthe map of Mr. Sparks, and by an- 
other map of a most imposiiitj character, and bearing 
every mark of high authenticity. It wasprinted and 
published in Paris in 1784, (the year after the con- 
clusion ofthe peace.) by Lnftie, s^ravenr du Rui, (en- 
graver of maps, &c totheKina:.) It isformallv enti- 
tled, on its face, a "mapot the United States of Amer- 
ica, according: to the Ireaty of pence of 1783. — (Carte 
des EtatsUnisde rAmerique,suivani letraitede paix 
de 1783.) It is "dedicated and presented" (dediee 
et present?e) "to his Excellency Benjamin Frank- 
lin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States 
of America, near the court of France," and while 
Dr. Franklin vet remained in Paris; for he did not 
return to the United States till the spring of the 
year 1785 Is there not, then, the mtist plausible 
ground lo argue that this map, professing to be one 



A question of disputed boundary between adja- 
cent territories, now rapidly filling up with a hardy 
and enterprising population, is one attended witb 
constant danger to the peace of the two nations. 
The acts of ill advised individuals, of small detach- 
ments of troops, of subordinate local authorities, 
may, at any moment, bring on a conflict, in which 
the two countries would be committed to the stern 
issues of war, against their own deliberate policy 
and will. How near this catastrophe was bein? 
brought about three years ago, on the occasion oi 
what was called the Aroostook war, I need not re- 
mind the Senate. For terminating this thorny and 
long-protracted controversy, so fraught with mis- 
chiefs and dangers to both countries, the failures of 
the past prove that the onlv expedient now left is 
the conventional establishment ofanewand well- 
defined boundary line. All attempts to effect an 
arrangement of this kind hitherto have been ren- 
dered unavailing, by the impossibility of obtaining 
the assent ofthe Slates of Maine and Massachi 



constructed ■acconing to the treaty of peace of i setts— one of them claiming the rights of sovereign- 
1/83, and being ''drdicated and presented" to Dr. : ,v and jurisdiction, as well as soil; the other an 
tranklin, the leading negotiator who concluded , o,-iginal and undive.sted interest in the .soil of the 
that treaty, and who yet reran iued in Paris wlole u|isp„ted territorv. Under the principles of our fed- 
the map was pubh.shed was made out with Ins j erative sv.stem. the national authoritv has been held 
knowledge, and by his directions; and that, cones-) incompetent, by means of a convention with a for- 
ponding asttdoes rdmticoUyjnhlhe map found by, e,>n power oroiherwi.se, lo change the boundaries, 
Mr. bparksmihe Archives of the Foreign Affairs in i and, in effect, alienate a portion of the lerritory of 
Fari.s, thpv both partake oi the same presumptions one ofthe members ofthe Union, without its formal 
in favor of their authenticity. j and .stipulated assent. This fundamental obstacle, 

Mr. R. .said he did not design to dwell farther on i which, through so long a series of abortive nego- 
these matters. That the knowledge possessed of| tiations, has continued to keep open an ancient and 
the country bordering on the northern, and north- ' dangerous controversy with a foreign power, has 



6 



at length, by a foruinate combination of circum- 
stances, and liappy reconciliation o( jarrin? inter- 
ests-, been overcome. Both Maine ami Massachu- 
setL-;, through iheir several conimisjiioners lur- 
iiished Willi lull jiowers for the purpose, have 
?iven their final assent to the new bDunilary line, 
separaiinsj their territory from that of the adja- 
cent British provinces, which is proposed lo be es- 
tablished bv the treaty before us. 

The Committee on Foreign Relations (said Mr. 
RtvEs) is clear in the opinion tliat an arrangement 
so sanctioned, after the numberless ptrplexiiK'> and 
impediments which have heretofore and so long ob- 
structed a satisfactory adjustment of the question, 
ou?ht not to be lightly disturbed by the action of 
this body. On lookiii;,' into the arr;ingemenl itself, 
they seenoihing in it incompatible with the charac- 
ter of a fair, just, ami reasonable conipiomise, un- 
der all the circumstances of difficulty and embar- 
rassment which surrounded the subject. The new 
boundary agreed on pursues the line recommended 
by the Kinsr of Netherlands, till it reaches a point 
on the St. Francis not very disionl fioin its source; 
and thence, turning otT at right angles, in a south 
weierly direction, it terminates at a point in the 
highlands where the respective boundaries hereto- 
fore claimed by Great Britain and the United 
Stales meet — throwing on the British side of the 
new line a unrrow strip of barren land, along the 
eastern base of the highlands formerly claimed by 
the United States, of about one kundred and ten 
miles in length. In consideration of ihi>; narrow- 
strip of land conceded to Great Britain, bt-vond 
what was allotted to her by the award of the King 
of the Netherlands, she grants in peipeiuiiv u> ihe 
inhabitants of Maine the free navigation of ilie Si. 
John, from the point where it enters her territory, 
lo the seaport at its mon-.h — guarantying, in favor 
of the agricultural produce and lumber" of Maine, 
the .same treatment, in all respects, as if thev were 
the productions of her own provinces. She also 
relinquishes and gives up lorever the one hundred 
thousand acres of valuable land at ihe sources ol 
the Connecticut, lying within the actual limits of 
New Hampshire; as well as the strip of hmd on 
the northern frontier of Vermont and New York — 
both of which were tleterinined, by the award of 
the King of the Netherlands, to belong to Great 
Biitain. And the all-important military position at 
R(juse's Point, commanding the outlet of Lake 
Champlain — which, by a special exception in the 
award ol the Kinj; of the Netherlands, was reserved 
to the United Stales — is also, by this arranj^emeni, 
forever secured lotliem. At the same time, in the ad- 
ju-imeni of certain disputed boundary lines farther to 
the west, on which the British and American com- 
mis>.i<iners under the seventh article of the treaty 
of Ghent dilfered, il is agreed that the limits shall 
be so established as to throw a very largeand valu 
ble island in the water communication bclween 
Lakes Huron and Superior, called St. George's or 
Sugar i-land, (which was claimed bv the British 
commissioner, ^ on the side of the United Stales; 
and also to yield to the United Slates an extensive 
district of about fourmillions of acres, Ivin;; on iln 
weticrnsideof [..ake Superior— of but liitle inirinsir 
value, probably, but which was, nevertheless, 
warmly contended for by ihe British commissioner 
under (lie aforesaid .irticle of the trea y of Ghcni. 
Many «)f ihcse concessions on ihe pari of Greai 
Britain, enuring to the i>ene(it of the United States 
in their national capacity, and being principally 



induced by the assent of the States of Maine and 
Massacliusetts to the establishment oi the new 
boundary line on the Northeastern frontier, the 
Ignited States finally stipulate to pay to those two 
States, in equal moieties, the sum of three hundred 
thousand dollars, on account ol' their assent to the 
said line; and to refund the expenses incurred by 
them, respectively, in protecting and surveying the 
disputed terriioiy. 

In iin:',lyzing the details of this arrangement, il 

appears thai .sevcn-twclfihs in quanlily of \he dh- 
[Hitcd ten itoiy have fallen to the share of Maine — 
111 valve, a far larger proportion. The lauds al- 
lotted to Great Britain are, for the most part, bar- 
ren and unproductive; deriving their chiel (if not 
sole) importance from the more diiect and conve- 
nient communication they afford between her 
provinces, and the greater breadth of border they 
give her on the St. Lawrence. These, indeed, 
are the essential object,s she professed to have in 
view. On ihe other hand, the lands reserved to the 
Slate of Maine are, many of them, of great fertility, 
and all of them abound in fine timber. But their 
actual commercial value must depend, after all, 
on the facilitiesof a cheap transportation to convey 
their agricultural produce, and especially their 
heavy lumber, to maikei. Hence the free naviga- 
tion of the St. John to the ocean is of vital import- 
ance to th<' upper parts of the State of Maine; and 
the stipulation to receive and Heat their productions 
on a footing of equal favor with the produce of the 
colonies, enhances still farther the value of this 
grant. The free navigation of the St. John formed 
no part of the award of the King of the Nether- 
lands; and in every practical view, therefore, the 
arrangement nuw proposed po-sesse.s marked ad- 
vantages for the Stale of Maine over that of the 
award, which it is now alteinpicd to exalt" so 
much in the comparison. On this point, we have 
tile highest possible evidence — the decision of the 
party most deeply interested— of Maine herself. It 
is apparent, from tlie correspondence belorcus, that 
Lord Ashburion was, at all limns, ready to enter 
into an ariangement on tlienakedbasisol the award 
of the Kmg of the Netherlands, and ihat the com- 
missioners of Maine were as .steady and unwaver- 
\i\s in their repugnance to it; and I am authorized 
exjiliiitly lo Slate the fact, ihat the three-fold option 
was distinctly presented to the commi-sioners — of 
the award, {he <i rbil mlion, aud the arranst'nienl'now 
before us They deliberately elected the la.st; and 
most wisely and sagaciou.sly, in my opinion, did 
they decide. 

Looking at the arrangement as a 7i«/7o»i«Z ques- 
tion, and as the inleres:s of the Union at large are 
conceined, its advantages, in a sober and candid 
view of things, appear to the committee equally ob- 
vious. Will any u'cntleman liesitnte to sny that the 
impoitant teiriioi ial concessions, and the quieting of 
contested boundaries all along the Nt)rthern fron- 
lierof the United Slates, from the head of Connecti- 
cut river to the western extremity of Lake Supe- 
rior, including the surrender of the WKfi'csliovable 
British tiilc to the ownci>hip of by far the most im- 
("oriant military position upon our whole trontier, 
( Uousc's Point,) are not cheaply juiichascd by the 
paltry sum to be paid to Maine and Massachusetts 
for theirassent to the new boundary^ Have honor- 
able L'entlemen, who find so much iault with this ar- 
rangement, l<)r;;otieii ihat Genertil Jackson was wil- 
ling, and actually entered into an a:;reemenl, to pay 
to Maine and Massachusetts— not ihe pittance of 



three'hundted thousand dollars — but an indemnity 
eciuivalent to a million and a quarter of dollars, if 
they would acquiesce in ihe award of the King of 
the Netherlands. 

But it is said thatiiie arrangement in question, by 
giving toGieat Britain the narrow sliip ol wild 
and desolate land on the eastern side ol the high- 
lands from the head walcrs of the St. Francis ri- 
ver to the Metjarmeiie portage, surrenders a line of 
milUary jiosUions, wliich, at the same lime, covi- 
viaiid Q%i,cb':cand cover the i<latc of Maine I But lor 
this unlucky treaty, Mr. President, these imporlnnt 
discoveries m military topography, I vt-niuie lo-say, 
would never have been made. We have had able 
and scientilic reports, irom time to time, on the de- 
ences of o\xv inland lionticr, Irom binrtls of offi- 
cers, consisting of the first l)rl)fe^si()nal men in 
America, who are well acqtminied wiih the coun- 
try in question, and nil its miliiarv aiiributes and 
relations. And yet, in not one of these reports 
have we had the remotest hint uf these command- 
ing military positions — facing, as they do, the St. 
Lawrence at points below Q.uebec, where nothing 
would be gained if you were to reach it, and on the 
other side looliitig down on a sterile region and 
boundless forests, where armies could neither be 
moved nor subsisted, and would, therefore, never 
attempt to penetrate! 1 have two of these reports 
now before me — one made in 1S38, and the other in 
1840 — and they both concur in the emphatic decla- 
ration, that north of the old route leading to Clue- 
bee along the Kennebec and the Chaudiere— a line 
which the southein termination of liie new boun- 
daiy conceded to Great Britain does not approach 
nearer than within some thirty or forty miles — there 
is no military position along the highlands of any 
importance either for defence or invasion. One 
of these reports di^po.^es ol the whole question, by 
briefly declaring that " no general, whu understood 
his profession, would invade Mnineby a route des- 
titute of forage, provisions, and the means of trans- 
portation ;" and the other pithily remarks, that 
" isolated fort.^ along the frontier, iif you had them, 
Avould command nothing beyciud thii range of their 
own guns."* And yet the f.liiixotic imagination of 
gentlemen, by these highland n-lndmilb, would com 
maud Quebec at the distance of some fifty miles! 

No, sir: Great Britain obtains nothing by the 
new boundary agreed upon, but a more direct and 
convenient communication between her upper and 
lower provinces, and a strip of aliernate rock and 
morass, which simply serves to eke out, by added 
space, her border along the St. Lawrence. And are 
these such boons thai national honor or safety for- 
bids they should be granted, for fair equivalenis, to 
a neighboring power, in the compromise and ad- 
justment of a disputed bound;:rv, which has been 
the subject of controversy for half a century'? We 
have always admitted that the boundary claimed 
by us was a most inconvenient one lor Great Brit- 
ain, by interrupting the communication between 
her provinces; and wc have never been so churli>h 
a neighbor as to insist on holding this advantage, 
against every proposition of ( ompromise and mu- 
tual accommodation. I cannot divest myself of 
the consciousness that we are the stronger power 
on this continent, and I am not afraid to do what 
the spirit of good neighborhood and manly inter- 

'6ee die rep^>rt (in ttie defence of the froiitipr nf Maine, 
communicaie.l to Coi.aress hy ilie S. cretaiy of War, nn the 
21sl Decemlier, 1S3S; and. also, the re(i(irt ofa lioarJ of ofiicers, 
on a system ol national defences, communicated the Ijib Mav, 
1810. 



course requires, when appealed toby corresponding^ 
dispositions; and it does seem to me that, while 
Great Britain is freely surrendering to us an inval- 
uable military position — her title to which, if she 
chose to insist on it, is above all question — (I mean 
Rouse's Point)— a position which is pronounced, 
by Ihe first military officers in our service, (in com- 
municationsnow before me,) lohe\.he^vesl!ilraiegic 
point on our Northern frontier— the /rey, in our 
hands, to the Canadas; in theirs, to the heart of 
our own country; and, therefore, "above all price," 
eiilif-r for attack or defence; — it would be ungra- 
cious, indeed, and unworthy alike of our honor 
and our strength, if we were doggedly to refuse 
the slightest relaxation from the rigor of our 
claims, even for an obvious mutual convenience. 

But the Roman god Terminus, Mr. President, 
is invoked to animate us to stand uncoinpromising- 
lyhyour limits as they are, however inconvenient 
to others or to ourselves. The honorable gentle- 
men who malce this invocation will pardon me 
for saying that they have not been very consistent 
worshippers of the Roman deity. Where was their 
holy reverence for the rites of this revived worship, 
three years ago, when my honorabh friend, one of 
the Senators from Maine [Mr. Williams] in- 
troduced a bill simply to provide for a peaceable 
and innocent survey of our boundaries by skilful 
and scientific men, according to the description 
of limits in (he treaty of peacel They then ar- 
rayed themselves in stem opposition even lo this 
peaceable attempt to ascertain our limits, lest it 
might give umbrage to our neighbor. I beg leave 
to remind my learned and classical friends who now 
hold lip to lis the example of the Romans in the 
worship of the god Terminus, that the same hardy 
and restless people worshipped another pagan 
deity — Janus, the god ol war — whose temple, al- 
ways open in time of war, was shut, we are told, 
but three times during a period of more than 
seven hundred years. Do the patriotic gemlemen, 
who call upon us now to imitate the example of the 
Romans in worshipping the litigious and impracti- 
cahl-^ divinity that presided over limits, mean lo in- 
vite us also lo follow them in their warlike and bloody 
career"? and do they propose to celebrate the Ame- 
rican TcrmiiHi.lia, not by libations of milk and 
wine, but bv the effusion of blood"? 

To the worship of these pagan deities, Mr. Pres- 
ident, has succeeded a purer and better religion, 
which teaches "peace on earth, and good will to 
men;" and while, for one, I would never shrink frotn 
Ihe maintenance of the rights and honor of my 
country, at everv hazard, when the occasion de- 
manded, I should, from the bottom of my soul, de- 
precate an appeal to the arbitrament of arms, upon 
a mere question of disputed boundary. We live 
in an age when the moral sense of mankind de- 
mands that every honorable expedient for the ad- 
justment of national disputes should be honestly 
tried, before the ultimate apj'eal is ventured upon; 
and I feel a .strong confidence that the body of onr 
lei low-citizens — the friends of civilization and hu- 
manity everywhere — the rest of the nations of the 
earth all of whom haveso deena stake in the preser- 
vation of s^erieral peace — will rejoice that, in this 
instance, they have not been tried in vain. 

We come now (said Mr. Rives) to that portion of 
the treaty which relates to the suppression of the 
African slave-t-ade. There i^ nonation under the 
sun which has shown, throusrh her whole history, 
more anxiety for the extinction of this odious and 



8 



revoliin? traffic than the TTnitcd Slates; and none 
have, therelore, a itet'per iiiieresl, historical and 
political, in the cuii-uiimiation of the great work 
in which they led the way. Not to speak of the 
various and repeated acts' of the Legislatures of 
the several States, while they were yet colonies of 
Great Britain, to arreM and put an end to this cruel 
iraliic — acts rendered inoperative by what my own 
Slate (Virginia) denounced at the time to be "an 
inhuman use of the royal negative," and which 
she specially set forth among the wrongs and 
grievance^ which impelled her toihe e,stablishment 
of an independent Government; — not to speak of 
acts of this sort, with which our ante-revolution- 
ary history abounds,— it is suflicieni to say ilinl 
the Government of the Union, Irom the mo- 
ment of its establishment under the existing Con- 
stitution, has steadily devoted itself to the ac- 
complishment of the same great object. While 
the Christian Slates of Europe still tolerated, 
and some of them even encouraged, this revolting 
commerce, the United States, first among the na- 
tions ef the earth, pronounced its formal condem- 
nation by law; and, following up this condemnation, 
as occasion required, with new penal sanctions, 
combined with active measures of surveillance 
and repression, they finally gave to the world the 
striking example of a crowning act of legislative 
energy, by which they affixed the brand of piiycy 
to the slave-trade, declaring that any citizen of the 
United States found engaged in it, whether on 
board an American or a foreign vessel, or any 
foreigner on board an American vessel, so em- 
ployed, "should be adjudged a pirate, and suffer 
dealli as such." 

While the United Slates thus set the example of 
their own early and energetic legislation for the 
I'-pression of this crime again.st humanity, it 
was felt that a general co operation of the power.- 
r>f Christendom, and especially of all the maritime 
powers. Would be nece.s'^ary to ensure its final and 
complete extirpation. In pursuance of this policy, 
the United States and Great Britain, in concluding 
the treaty ol peace at Ghent, enterel into iKe fol- 
lowing stipulation with each other: 

'•Wbereanttie tratric in slave:' is irrtcoiir,ilabl« with the pnii- 
ciplen «( hmnanily and juittiri-; anii wher»-aH, tioih liis Majf-siy 
and ihe tiniied Siaieg are dcKimus of continuing their fffurt.i 
in promote l!8C[iiire aholilioii; it i.« hereliy acreeil thai boihlht 
contracting parties Hhall use. their beat cndeaTort to accom- 
plith 10 df-tirat/le an ofiject. " 

A practical interpretation of the spirit of this en- 
gagement, and a striking proof of the cordial sym- 
pathy of the representatives of the peopl<" in the 
general object of it, was afterwards aflfordcd in a 
resolution, passed by the House of Represenlaiives, 
on the 10th day of February, 1H23, by the nearly 
unanimous voie of 131 yeas to [) nays. It was ex- 
pressed in the following words: 

"Jlriolrtd, That tlir Pn-mdi-nt of ihe United Siaica he re- 
qutiUed to eniT upon and proKccule from time to time Miirh 
nrRoii.rionii wiiti the maritiini- powcra o( Enro|io and Amrrira 
•« he may derm exjMidie.nt, for the cfTectual uli ■linon of Ihi- 
Alriran <lavr iradr, anil iui iiliimato denunri;iiion on piricy 
under thr law of naliona, hy coni-enl of the. civiIizihI wcirid." 

Both of these solemn acts — ihe resolution of 
the House of Represenlaiives in !ft23,as wi II as the 
stipulation ol the trraly of Ghent— dearly rceoL' 
niscd the propriety and necessiiy of some system 
of combined a<:iion among ihe mariiinie powers of 
the world, to put an end effectually lo the slave- 
trade. Great liritain early embraced, and li;is tiil 
now perscveringly adhered to the opinion, thai the 
mutual conccfi-siou of a right of search, to be exer- 



cised by flic anned cruisers of each party over the 
merchant vessels of the others, is the only effectual 
means of putiing an end to this infamous traffic. 
The United Stales, on the other hand, unable to 
forget ihe .serious wrongs they had so recently ex- 
perienced from the abusive exercise of the right of 
search; jealous, above all things, of the immunity 
of theirflag,andof ihegeneral freedom ofihe seas — 
ihe commonand equal inheritance of all nations — 
have been unwilling to compromise these great 
interests, by entering into an arrangement in- 
volving so vital an innovation upon the establish- 
ed maritime code; especially as they believed other 
means were to be found no less elTectual for the 
accomplishment of Ihe common object of the sup- 
pression of the slave-trade. Great Britain, in the 
mean time, succeeded in making treaties with 
Spain, Portugal, and the Nethei lands, for the mu- 
tual ; ight of search. And other European Stales 
having, from time to lime, come into the same ar- 
rangement, the United States are now the only 
considerable maritime power that has continued 
lorefUvSp its accession to a system which they could 
not but regard as compromising, in a high deffree, 
the general freedom of the seas. It has thus, 
doubtless, happened that the American flag has 
been, in many instances, fraudulently used lo cover 
vessels really belonging to Slates who are parlies 
to the mutual gram of ihe right of search, from 
the exercise of that right; and, to prevent this eva- 
sion, the Government of Great Britain recenily put 
forth a pretension of alarming exlent, and which 
we have resisted, and must ever resist, as wholly 
unsustainable upon any just principle of public law; 
to wit, that her cruisers have the right to board and 
detain vessel sailing under the American flag, 
when they shall judge it proper to do so, to a.scer- 
lain, by an examination of their papers, whether 
ihev are truly and bonajide American or not. 

This was the state of things existing at the com- 
mencement of the present session of Congres,s, 
when the President laid before us the correspond- 
ence which had taken place on ihe subject of this 
new pretension between our Minister at London and 
Lord I'alin°rsion and L«rd Aberdeen, successively 
her Majesty's Secre ariesof State for Foreign Af- 
fairs. The message of the President, referring to the 
same pretension, lield the following emphatic and 
unequivocal language: 

"However desirous the Uni'eJ Stales niiiy be (or the giip. 
pr'umon of the slave trade, they cannot consent lo interpoliilioiis 
inio the inariiitne code, at Ih^ mere will and pleasure of other 
(J.ivernmenw. We deny the rlphiofany euch uilerpolaiion lo 
anyone or all the nations of the curih, without our foiisenl. 
We claim to have a voice in all nmendmenis or alterations of 
that roilr; and when we ^irc given to undersiand, a« intliii in- 
stance, by .1 foriiKn Governm-'ni, that il5 treaties wiili other na 
iloiiB cannot be exccuitd without the establishment and enforce- 
Mi'iit of lie*- piinciplca of in iiilime piili.-e, to he applied wilh- 
inii our consent, we niuct employ a lanciiage neither of enuiyo. 
c«l import, nomuacepiilile of ini«con-<iruction. .\iiierican citi- 
Z'-im, proserutiiiga lawful cominerrc in the African sea-", under 
the llajol their country arc irn responsible for the abuse, or 
unlawliil use of that ll.ii; hy oihern; nor can they rich fully, 
(HI acroiini of any such alleted al'uses, be intcrrupud, molested, 
or detain«<l, while on the ocean." 

Here, then, is the answer of the American Gov- 
ernment, in the highest and most authoritative 
('(irm known lo its official inlerroiirse, to the pre- 
tention advanced on the part of Greai Britain, in 
the discussion with our laie Minister at London. 
It isan unequivocal negation of that pretension, in 
principle and in practice; and leaves nothing to be 
done which could annoiimc in more emphatic 
terms our determined resistance to it. 



The vital question of the iinlependome of our 
flag being; thus disposed of,bv theproinpi, unequivo- 
cal, and final answer of the American Government 
lo lliis new pretension, other considerations of an 
important character present ihemsflvesto view. It 
is shown, by the correspondence just relern-d to, 
and other incontestable proofs ihai the American 
flag has been extensively abused to cover this in- 
iquitous trallic — sometimes by American citizens, 
notwithstanding the severity of our penal ena(;t- 
menls; but more frequently by the subji els of oilier 
powers — by Spanish, Portuguese, or Brazilian 
slave-dealers, who assume the American colors to 
protect them ;rom the right of search, lo which 
they would be subject under their own national 
flags. The fact of this abuse is admitted by our 
Government. Mr. Stevenson, in his letter lo Lord 
Aberdeen, says: '-That the flag of the United States 
has been grossly abused, there is loo much reason 
to believe and deplore." The same declaration is 
repeated bv ihe President, in his message to Con- 
gress at ihe commencemenl of the present session; 
and in the correspondence between Lord Palmer- 
ston and Mr. Stevenson, which accomp;nied that 
message, the mortifying fact is disclosed that, of the 
four vessels sailing under the American flag, which 
had been visited and detained by British cruisers 
on the coast of Africa, (and which it became the 
duty of our mini.ster to make the subject of repre- 
sentation and complainito the British Government, 
on account of the violaiion of the flag,) cvcnj one 
of ihem turned out, u[)on inquiry and investigation, 
to be davers, furnished with American captains 
and American papers; bul, in reality, as there is 
reason lo believe, SpaiiisA properly. 

Seeing, then, that our flag has been shamelessly 
abused lo ( over an infamous trallic, which our laws 
were the first to denounce and pursue wiih ade- 
quate penalties — that ii has been made a shelter lo 
screen from the punishment due to their crimes the 
most profligate of the human race, — does not the 
national honor demand thai we should give to the 
world an as.surance of our determination lo cleanse 
and preserve it from this horrible pollution'? We 
have, upon considerations of the highest state poli- 
cy, and from a jealous scdicitude to maintain liie 
freedom of the seas, refused to concede that mutual 
right of search which other nations have consented 
lo yield, as an instrument for the suppression of the 
slave-trade. We have, with still stronger determi- 
nation, and upon impregnable grounds of public 
law, declared our resistance to the new pretension 
of subjecting our flag to visitation and detention, 
for the alleged purpose of carrying into execution 
the agreements of other poweis, to which we have 
refused to become a parly. Under these circum- 
stances, is it not due to the character of the Ameri- 
can people, pledged by all their past history to the 
great cause of the final suppression of the African 
slave-trade, that, while rejeciin? ihe plans proposed 
by oiher Governments for this object, we should 
eome forward with one of our own, which will af- 
lord a complete guaranty against the prostituiion to 
which we have seen our flag so vilely exposed, and 
which will, al the same lime, bring the most efii- 
cienl means to the general extirpation of this odious 
traffic, without intrenching on the liberty of the 
seas and the established principles of maritime 
lawl 

Considerations and sentiments such as these, 
doubtless suggested the arrangemenl contained in 
the treaty. By that arrangement, il is stipulated 



that the two powers shall each maintain a squadron 
of not less than eighty guns on the coast of Africa, 
to enforce, stjiarakli/ and rcsjirctively, the laws and 
obligations ot each coimiry for the suppression of 
the slave-lradi': the two stpiadrons to be perfectly 
iiuhpi'.iiilcnl ot each oiher; but, al the same time, lo 
aci in concert and co-oj>c ration for the altainmeni of 
the common object, under such orders as shall, from 
time lo lime, be given by their respective Govern- 
ments. And it is farther stipulated, that the two 
parties will uni e in ;.ll becoming representations 
and remonstrances to any power wiihin whose do- 
minions markets for the purchase of African slaves 
may be siill allowed to exist, lo close such markets 
al once and loiever. In virtue of this arrangement, 
(which is limited to five years, if either party shall 
wish then to terminate it,) each power will, sepa- 
rately and independently, exercise the necessary 
supervision and police over all vesseLn sailing un- 
der its own llag; neither being permitted to visit or 
search the vessels of the other; hut the presence of 
the two sipiadrons, always on the alert, and acting 
in friendly concert, will affbid, by their vigilant 
oversight, complete secuiity against the use of the 
flag of either power to cover the prohibited traffic, 
and will, at the same time, give protection lo the 
merchant vessels of each, when necessary, from all 
unlawful inierruption or molestation.* 

This arrangement is adapted to meet every exi- 
gency of the case, and reconciles the most vigor- 
ous measures for the suppression of the slave-trade 
with a sacred regard for the independence and im- 
munity of the national flag. It vindicates from all 
suspicion the sincerity of the United Stales; which 
their persevering and solitary opposition, for a long 
time, to the mutual concession of the right of search, 
for the more effective pursuit and detection of the 
traffic, exposed to injurious doubts and misconstruc- 
tion. At the same time, it has the merit of a strict 
fidelity to American principK-s. It is, indeed, the 
identical plan which, when Lord Castlereagh was 
so earnestly insisting on a mulnal right of search as 
the only effectual means for ihe suppression of the 
slave-trade. President Monroe cau-ed to be present- 
ed, as the American conlre-projcl — which, however, 
did not prevent his Lordship from recurring to, 
and urgently pressing, again and again, his favorite 



■ In (he speech ol" Ml. Benton on ihe Brnieh liealy, recently 
publishej, he claims great credii to Mr. V.in Buren's ariniinis- 
iration for havina rejected, &s Ciinlrary to Ihe principles OTui 
jjolicy of lUia Gnvernmenf, an agreement of co-operation (or 
the suppicssion of the slave-trade, which, he says, was similar 
10 thai cimtainert in ihe treaty. Mr. Benton's allusion, it seems, 
1-5 to a lett'T of Mr. P.iuhlir.o;, i^ecretary of ihe Navy, to Lieut. 
Paine, cominantliiiH the I niierl Slates sch'inner Grampus; in 
which the 5<ei-reUiry ili.<:approved an an. iiigemenl entered inlo 
hy iliat oflicer with tlie rommani'er of a British cruiser on 
the co.nsi o( Africa, by which "Lieut. I'aine dt/pgaled 10 
ilie BritiBh commaniier //le right to seize and detain, under 
certain circumsiances, ve.ssfls sailing under A'ti'.rican col- 
nrs.'' Now, it was this "delcsaiion ol power lo sfizt and dt' 
Inin vessels under American colors," which Mr. Paulding de- 
clared was "unauthorized hy instructions, and contrary lo the 
erlatilii^licil and well-known principles and policy of the Ameri- 
can Governmenl." Bui Mr Benton surely will not say vhaMhe 
arriiigemcnt made in ihe treaty delegntes lo British cruisers 
the risht to S' ize and detain ve.iseLi sailing under Ameri- 
can colors It is precisely the Ci'nirary; for the Irea'v ex- 
pressly declares thai ihe two squadrons arc to enforce, sepa- 
rately a7id respectively, the laws of each country lor the eup. 
pression of ihe slavelrade.and thai they are m he independent 
of each other. The same letter of Mr. P.juldii s, however, en- 
joins ^-d friendly co operation tri'h Ihe British cruisers in 
tlie suppression of the slave-trade-," end expressly aiithorizea 
Lieut. Paine "to cruise in company and co operation icilh 
any British vessel of war employed on Ihe slave coast" — 
which is precisely whii is done (neither les.-- nor more) hy the 
treaty arrangement so much denounced by Mr. Benion ! 



10 



light oj uarck. The proposition referred to was 
dfveloped in a leiier (rem the Secretary of Slate 
to the Hon. Stratford Canuing, dated the 30th of 
December, 1820: 

"Bui, whi* rrcrriiing ilini the character of the orcan'zfil 
mraiiH ol riin|>t r.Kiiiii f.r tin- Htippri-ssidii nf i1ih African I'lavr 
trade, prop'Xied tiy (iiral Kiiluiii, did nm ndmii of our rimcur- 
fence In ihc ad •|iimmi <i| ihein, the Presidenl has l>een lar fmni 
the dinpoKiiioii Id ii<jfci or disrou' ipnaiict) h'- !?eiierul propufi 
lion of eonrerlcti co-operation with Ortat Brilain. lo the ;ir. 
ounpliKhiiieni of ihe coinuiun enil— the Huppref>i<io(i of the 
trade. For ihis piiijitise, arujed r.riiUviK of itic Uiiiteil :<iaiis 
have been for sunie tune kep siaiiomd on ihe ci.asl which is 
the scene ol this odi'Oi* iraffir — a incaai.re which it i.s in the 
conieiiiplation of this Government to coniinue, without inier. 
iD'saion. As there are untied Britisli vessels, charueil with the 
same duly, con-Jianily Itrpi cruiHioir on the same coiisi, I am 
direcieil bv ihe Pre«idcni l'> proi.i.se that infiructions, lu he 
Concerted hetvtenlh^ Iwu Gorernnienlii, wilh a view to mii 
tuiil assmlance, should he given to the cuiim indersof ihe vcs 
eels reiiperiively as-idiied 111 (hatservice; that they may he nr- 
derfd. whenever Ww orcasioii may render it cnnveiiieni, to 
cruise in company Hgether^ to commuiiica'e inuina'ly to each 
other all inlonnaiion olnamed by the one, and wliirh may In- 
useful to the exei uii.in of the duties of ihe oiher; and to eive 
each other every a&.istance which niay be compaiible with th.- 
performan e of their own service, and adapted to the end which 
IS Ihe common aim of both pariie.^s " 

An apprehension has been expre.ssed, Mr. Pre.si- 
dent, that this ai.angement will carry with it dis- 
appointment lo our ancient ally and friend, France 
— who, by withholding her ratificaiion from the 
quintuple treaty, has placed herself upon ciimmon 
ground with us, in regard to the great question of 
the fieedom of the sea; and that it may tend !o 
weaken the position .so gajlantlj' a.^suraed, on the 
same occasion, by our abk and patriotic minister at 
Paris. Neither consequence, I am persuaded, can 
possibly arise. France will see wilh .satisfaction, on 
the one hand, that Gieat Britain has acceded lo a 
scheme of maritime co-operation for ihe suppres- 
sion of the slave-trade, involving no right of search; 
and, on the other, that the United States, while 
raaintamin? intact the independence of their flag, 
have airreed to devote an efficient poriion of tl'eir 
naval power to the common cau.se of extirpating a 
traffic which has become thf horror of the civil- 
ized world. She will see, in the prinoip'es on 
which this arrangement is founded, the very doc- 
trines heretofore asserted by her most distinguished 
statesmen— by Talleyrand, in 1814; by the Due de 
Richelieu, in I8l8; and by Cliaieaubriand, in 18-2-2: 
and in the arrangement "itself she will see an ex- 
act refleeliin of the conlrc-projet which she cau.st-d 
to be presented to the Congress of Aix la Chapelle, 
as a substitute for the British proposition of a lerip 
rocal right of search. In regard to our distin- 
guished representative at the court of France, the 
conclusion of this arran^^'cment will serve only to 
crown his useful and eflicieiit services; and the rat- 
ification of the quintuple treaty — which, by his 
limely and well directed efTi.rLs, he has conlribuied 
thus far to avert — must henceforward be considered 
a.s definitirrlij withheld. No person honors more 
than I do the true-hearted instincts of American 
patriotism, as well as the .sai^acious views and lolty 
spirit, which have directed our able minister, at so 
imporiant a juncture. He has entitled himself to, 
and will undoubtedly receive, the warmest thanks 
of his cotiniry. 

The incidental advantages attending this ar- 
rangement, in the support and protciion which 
the presenre of an American .s<iiiailnin will give 
loour glowing comm'^rcc on the coast of Africa — 
a cotninercc susceptible of the most beneficial ile- 
velopinenis, thrmish the civilized colonial setlle- 
ineots already established there — constitute an im- 



portant additional recommendation of it. This 
consideration eaily attracted the attention of the 
proper departmeni; and we see, from the report of 
the Secretary of the Navy at the commencement 
of the session, that he proposed to enlarge mate- 
rially the number of vessels employed on the Afri- 
can station, as well in reference to this object, as 
for thesuppiession of the slave-trade. The extent 
of the squadron st pulated to be maintained there, 
is probably not greater than the Secretary would 
have deemed expedient in any event; and the ex- 
pen.se will be amply repaid in" resulting benefits lo 
the commerce of the country. 

The last stipulation in the treaty which remains 
to be noticed, is that by which the parties agree 
mutually to surrender fugitives froui justice, in 
certain cases. An arrangement of this sort be- 
tween nfighboring States, whose territories border 
on each other through an extended boundary — pre- 
senting to offenders great facilities of escape from 
one jurisdiction into the other — seemstobe urgently 
demanded by the interests of peace, law, and .social 
order. So just and proper is it in itself, that some 
writers of high aulliority on the law of nations 
have regarded it as a matter of ab.soluie obliga- 
tion, independently of treaty stipulation.s. The 
modern and better opinion, however, (considering 
how diversified, and often arbitrary, is Ihe penal 
legislation of different countries,) is, that there is 
no obligation to snrrendt-r fugitives from the crim- 
inal justice of one country taking refuge in 
another, but in virtue of positive and precise com- 
pact. The want of some conventional arrange- 
ment of this sort between ihe United States and 
Great Britain has been particularly felt in the 
Slates of the Union adjacent to the Canadas nnd 
other British po.ssessions on the continent, where 
the prospect of ihe easy impunity gained by pass- 
ing from one side to the oiher of the boundary 
line has been found to operate as a great tempta- 
tion and encoura^:ement to crime. Several of 
those States have manifested an earnest desire for 
such a reciprocal arranjrement between the two 
Governments. The stipulation in theirraty, it will 
be seen, is confined exclusively lo crimes of an 
aggravated charactera^ainsi lifeor property — such 
as murder, robbery, piracy, and some two "or tfirce 
other enumerated oi^ences, carefully pretermitting 
all political offences; and lest some unforeseen 
abuse or inconvenience should arise in the practi- 
cal administration of ihe agreement, the right is 
reserved to either parly to terminate it at will. 

This article closes liie circle of matters embraced 
bv the treaty. There are t)ther questions, of much 
inierest to both countries, winch iiave formed the 
subject of an important correspondence between 
the Secretary of State and the special minister of 
Great Britain. This correspondence has been laid 
before the Senate wilh the Ireaiy, and must neces- 
sarily enter into iheir consiiieraiion in ilisposing 
of the treaty itself. It has, therefore, attracted the 
careful attention of the coinmiiiee; and they have 
seen, with pleasure, ihai there has been an amica- 
ble and honorable uiidersinndintr, or an important 
advance to such an understanding uliimniely, on 
each of the fjiiesiions which formed the topic of 
thai correspondence. 

The first of thtise questions that present them- 
selves to view, is Ihe nlfair of the steamboat f^aro- 
litie, capiured and 1 1 est royetl, .some years ago. with- 
in ihe territorial limiis of the United Siaies, and 
forming part of the arrears of an unsettled dipio- 



niatic account which the present Aclminisirntion 
inherited from the last. It is no part ut" my pur- 
pose (said Mr. R.) to cast censure unnecessarily 
anywhere, or to enter into a partisan discussion of 
any of the (juestions which now come before us for 
a grave and calm deliberation. r>ui,as gentlemen 
have seen fit to indulge in very nnspai iiig deiiiui- 
ciations of the course pursued by those now in pow- 
er, in regard to this atl'iiir, and liave given the reins 
to their imaginations in the most boundless and gra- 
tuitous praises ot the course of ihe laie Admiui.s- 
tration on the same subject, it becomes indispensa- 
ble to a just undersiandingot the question, to restate 
facts in the nakedness of their historical truth. 

The seizure and dcstrueiion of the Caroline oc- 
curred at Schlosser, on the Niagara frontier, in 
December, 183"; being the first year of Mr. Van 
Buren's administration. It led o a brief corre- 
spondence between Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Fox, at 
Washington; and Mr. Steven.son, our minister at 
Loudon, was instructed to make a formal repre- 
sentation to the British Government on the subject, 
and to demand redress. This representation was 
made by Mr. Stevenson, in a note to Lord Palmers- 
ton dated ihe2-3dot May, 1838. His note remain- 
ing without any other answer than a mere ac- 
knowledgment of its receipt for more than twelve 
months, Mr. Stevenson, very properly, wrote to 
Mr. Forsyth in July, 1839, staling that he "regretted 
to say no answer had yet been given to his note in 
the case of the Caioline," and desirin? to know "if 
itwasthewish of the Government that he should 
press the subject again; and, if so, with what de- 
gree of urgency." In answer to this communica- 
tion, Mr. Forsyth, in September, 1^39, replied, that 
no instructions were then required for again bring- 
ing forward the question of the Caroline; that he 
had had frequent conversations with Mr. Fox in 
regard to the subject — one of very recent date; and 
"irom its ti)ne, the President expects the British 
Governmeiit will answer your [Mr. Stevenson's] 
application in the case without much farther de- 
lay." But, in point of fact, the President's expect- 
ation was not fulfilled; the British Government 
gave no answer to Mr. Stevenson's "application in 
theca^e;" and so the matter stood — the formal rep- 
resentation made by Mr. Stevenson remaining 
wholly unnoticed by the British Government for 
eighteen month- longer, and down to the close of 
Mr. Van Buren's administiation ! For three lona; 
years Mr. Van Buren patiently acquiesced in this 
silence, and slept over an outrage which gentle- 
men — his friends and eulogists^ on this floor — 
would persuade us, in the lofty flights of their 
chivalry and eloquence, they burned to avenge by 
an instant recourse to arms. 

What advantage has been naturally taken of 
this most extraordinary acqniesence of the last ad- 
ministration, to embarrass any renewed demand for 
redress, is strikingly shown in the following pas- 
sage of a note adilressed by Lord Palmersion to 
Mr. Stevenson onthe2d of September last, which 
IS now before me: 

^ "ll aii|ieais, thei,, !hnt, for renr'y ihppe ve;Ms, lli(> Unitet 
Sta!e.s Goveinnent arqiiipsied in Itie i?ile.iice of lipt Majcs'vV 
Giivernnipnl on itiis .«iil)j' ci; for thonirh in SeplemlitT. ISJS 
Mr F.irsyih siatfid, ae a n'asoii for not prt>sing hrr Maje.iy'.- 
Gnvern:npni lor an ;it.-wer. lliai the Prcsiileni hut b^en I. d bj 
Finnecnnversa'ion ot Mr. Fi'x, to ex|iec.t the British answrr 
witho>i;>ny further delay, yet ihat r^aton necei-sariiy Cf-ased 
wiih ilie lurthfir lap.se of time, and could not b.^ said lo havi- 
held ?oo I as Inns a.-' tdl the be2!iaiiiig of 1840 Mr. Sipvcpfon. 
nioreov.'r, .-•hecifically sfu'es. in hiirioipof ihe 31;;i ulijnir>, itial, 
dnriiis 'hi- wliole rn'erval between ilie date of Ins n..ic ol May, 
1838, and the time when the arrest ot McLeud became known in 



Knslaiul, in February, I&ll. no cominunication ever look place 
lictwern liiuiHelfand the un)i;rMiKludoD thrMubjeCt ol tin- Car- 
oline. Now,a8 nciilier Mr. .Suven.son, nor the laie rrimdenl 
Van lluren, have ever Hliuwn ihemiielves deficient in wuiclilul 
auilatnve aileniion toall inanerii in wliicli itie >u/<< rigliii) of 
(he I'liiieil Staio.sare roncerneil, Uie iiiiilernKiieuc iiHldi-rii iliut 
he has not niiirh erred in t^iippotd.e, aHBiaieii in hix loriiierrom- 
iniiiiicalion. that ihirf/on^' anil inli-nlional silniicf i<l ihe Uni- 
led .St.iictttJoverntneiii, anil ol iiw miniiticr ai ihiv roun, upon 
'he siilijcrt ol the Caroline, arose Irooi the coiiunleraiKni* to 
wliirh the iiiid.r8i2ii. d .idverieil in iliai noie " 

The considerations adverted lo in his Lordship's 
former note, as expressed by him-elf, were, that the 
President was "perfectly aware" thai the Br;tish 
Government considered the destruction of the Car- 
oline a justifiable act of self-defence, dt)ne by order 
of her Majesty's colonial authorities; that buth what 
her Majesiy's Giiveinment had done, and what they 
had abstained from doing, "could leave no doubt on 
ihe mind of the President" that the British Gov- 
ernment intended to decline to comply with the de- 
mand contained in Mr. Stevenson's note; and that 
the presumption, therefoie, was, that the President, 
in not pressing for an answer, was actuated by the 
consideration that it was better lo leave the refusal 
of the British Goveriimenl to be inferied from its 
silence, than to have it /"(.in/ta/Zy communicated in 
answer to an C3r;;/2ci7 demand of ihe Uniied States. 
However this may be, (and I do not mean, .said 
Ml. II., to enter into the merits of the diplomatic 
digladiation which took place on the tjccasion be- 
tween Lord Palmerston and Mr. Stevenson,) noth- 
ing is clearer ihan that President Van Buren can- 
no? claim the benefit of the plea which is now set 
up for him — to wit: that, during the period of his 
administration, the destruction of the Caroline pre- 
sented itself to him, for aught that appeared to the 
contrary, as the mere "act of individuals."* 

So far is this from being the case, that his own 
minister plenipotentiary, in the note addressed by 
him to Lord Palmerston in May, 1838, 'in obedi- 
ence to instructions," expressly presented the out- 
rage for which he was directed todemmd redress, 
as one "commiited by British tronpx from the prov- 
ince of Upper Canada," "forming a portion of the 
Bri/ish force at Chippewa," and "planned and cvcu- 
tcd., inith tjie knovlcdsc and approbation of the Lien- 
tenant- Governor of Upper Canada." Whatever 
other reasons, then, Mr. Van Buren may have had 
for his extraordinary and patient acquiescence 
in the lons'-conlinued omission of ihe Brit- 
ish Government to return any answer to our 
demand of reparation in the case of the Caroline, 
he cannot take the benefit of an afierihought, in 
contradiction with his own deliberate otiicial act. 

He may have thought, perhaps, thai, in a case 
where the ju-lification of the British Government 
rested on a question of fact as lo the deforce and ur- 
sency of that necessity of sdf-dc fence nnder which 
their authorities profes-sed lo have acted, and in re- 
lation to which the testimony and statements relied 
on by the respective Governments we-^e directly at 
variance, prudence and a proper regard for the 
peace of the two countries forbade that their rela- 
tions should be brought to extremity on a point of 
dubious find debatable evidence, where, amid the 
conflict of opposing stiilements, it was diflicult to 
asceriain the truih. But, considering the gravity 
of the occurrence, and the danger ol its being 
ttrawn inio precedent by a ptiwerfiil and haughty 
neighbor, he owed it to the character of the coun- 
try, adjourning every subordinate question of evi- 
dence, to insist at once upon -a prompt disavowal of 

'Mr. Uentoii'a speech. 



12 



any in't^ntional disre<;pect of the national sovereign- 
ty, accompanied wiih an explicit acknowlcci^mi'iii 
of tho«ie sacred principles of the public law wlii<h 
guard the inviolability of territory, and upon the 
scrupulous observance of which the pe ice and dig- 
nity ol nations so vitally depend. 

Noiliing of this sort, however, was done. The 
question was permitted to slumber in the most pro- 
found nesjiect during the whole period of Mr. 
Van Buien's presidency; and those now in power 
have had lo assert the national dignity and honor, 
under :ill the disadvaniajjes arisin^MVnm ihe long 
acquiescence and virtual dereliciiim of the last 
Adnunisiration. The correspondence submitted 
to us sliows in what manner, and upon whai 
principles, this contiover.sy, so long the source of 
mutual irritation and heartburning between the two 
countries, has been nt length honorably terminated. 
The British minister gives his adhesion, in the 
mo^t explicit and imequivocal terms, to all the 
principles of public law, which we have laid down 
as applicable to the case. He declares, that "rc- 
specl for the invinlable cliarartcr of the tr.rrilory of 
independent Tuitions is the most essential foundfUio/i 
of cirilization;" and that, in adiii:ion to a sense of 
moral responsibility, the most obvious dictates of 
policy ai\'{ tJi/j?r«Mvonld lead Great Britain to an 
observance of this duty, "in the case of a long 
conterminous boundary of some thousand miles, 
with a rounirv of such great and growing power 
as the United States of America, inhabited by a 
kindred rare, gified with all its aciiviiy, and all 
its suscep:ibili!y on points of national hono"-," that 
while erenj consideration, leads the British Govern- 
ment tri -el as lii^h a value as the Government of 
the Uniud Stales can possibly do " on this 
/»ar(7ffu??/j(/ obligation of reciprocal respect for the 
independent territory of each," it is yet admitted, 
by all writers on public law, and by the occasional 
practice ijf all nations, (our own among the num- 
ber) that a strong overpowering tucessity may arise, 
when this great principle may and must be mo- 
mentarily su'«pendeil; but "it must be so for tlu: 
shortest possible period, during the continuance of an 
admitted I'ferru/ing necessity, and strictly confined 
icilhin the narrowest limits imposed by that ne- 
cessity " 

Thus far, there is a perfect and satisfactory ac- 
cordance between the views of the Government of 
the United States and those of the British Govern- 
ment, as represented by Lord Ashburton, both as to 
the general principle, and the narrow and limited 
excepiion to it. The excef)ti(in, within the limits 
soasiringcnilv stated by Loid A>hburton.isadmitted 
both by .Mr. Stevenson, m his iioie to Lord Pal- 
merston in .May, IHIJM^ and bv Mr. Webster, in Ins 
note I'l Mr. Fox, in April, lHll;andupou it, indeed, 
rests ihe vindi<niion o( some important tran.sar- 
tions in our own military history, which are too 
deeply envcraven on the recollertinii ol ilie country 
to mak'; it ri<'ces-.ary for me to recall them to the 
Senate. Mr. Steven-^on difme-ithe nei(s>;iiy which 
is admiii'd lo consiitule an exception to the gi n 
eral inviolability of neutral terniory, to be "iinmi- 
neni and ex'reme. and involving impending de- 
struction." Mr. Webster, wiili no less for>;e, de 
scril^es it to be "a necessity <>f self defence, instant, 
overwholuiin?, leaving no choice of means, .-iiid 
no moment for delibefati<in." Lonl Ashbiirinii, 
distinctly assenting to the limits thus cautiously 
placed upfin the admiited exception, seeks, by a 
recurrence lo the circumstances of the case, lo 



show that the steamboat Caroline, being the means 
and instrument by which "accessions of men, arms 
and munitions of war were hourly" brought from 
the American shore to the ; osition of the hostile 
and invading force on Navy Island, the necessity 
lor her capture and destruciion was of that impe- 
rious and overruling character, which brought 
the act fairly within thelimitsof the excepiion, as 
defined by the Government of the United States. 

Still there was in the case, whatever may have 
been the supposed necessity for it, (as Lord Ash- 
burton remaiks, with thatjust -ense of what belongs 
to ttie honor and dignity of both Goveiiiments, 
which characterizes all the communications of this 
able and judicious minister,) the, grave fact of 
"a violation of territory,'' which he is "iuslructed 
by her Majesty's Government to assure ihe Gov- 
ernment of the United States is considered by ilas 
a most sei ions fact;'" s^niX that, "far from thinking an 
event of this i.ind should be lightly risked, they 
would unfeigncdhj deprecate its recurrence;" that 
it is to be "regretted that an explanation and apol- 
ogy for the occurrence was not immediately 
made;" that he can "most solemnly aftirm that no 
disrespect to the soveieign authority of the United 
Slates was intended;" and that "he repeats the as- 
sumnce of regret her Mnj^^sty's Government feel 
that the event should have disturbed the harmonj' 
ihcy so aii.xioiislv wish to maintain with the Ameri- 
can people and Government " After the "explana- 
tions and nssurances" thus cordially given, he 
concludes his letter to the Secretary of State, by 
expressin:: the hope that "all feelings of resent- 
ment ;ind ill-will, resulting from these truly unlbr- 
tuiiaie events, may be buried in oblivion; and that 
they may be succeeded bv those of harmony and 
friendship, which it is certainly Ihe interest, and, 
he also believes, the inclination of all to promote." 

If gentlemen can see nothing in (rank and hon- 
orable explanations such as these, proceeding from 
the representative of an "old and haughty nation, 
proud in arms," to satisfy the just sentiment of na- 
tional pride and dignity, in regard to a transaction 
lontj past, over which our own Government had 
slciit with quiet indid'erence for yenr*. and where 
there is a perl'ect concurrence of both Governments 
in the great conservative principles which must 
guard and secure the immimity of their respective 
terrritories, (differing only as to a dehitable ques- 
tion of fact in the ]>aiticuiar case,) I can only say, 
that their moral teinperament.s are constituted very 
diffeienily from my own. 

The next subject treated in the correspondence 
between her Biilannic Maje.<ty's .special minister 
and the Secretary of State, is one of peculiar deli- 
cacy, as well as iiii|)onanre;— the interference of 
the British colonial authorities wiih American ves- 
sels having slaves on board, the proneriy of Ameii- 
can citizens under the laws of tneir respective 
Slates, and driven by stress of wenihcr, or other 
uncoutrollali'c causes, inlotlie British West Indies, 
while pnssiiig from one jiort to another ol' the 
Union. The (irst cases of this .sort which oc- 
'111 led, M'ere of three vessels whose names have 
unlortunaiely become familiar as " household 
words" in our diplomatic history — ihe Comet, the 
h'.ncomivm, and the Enterprise. The two fii.st 
mimed of th'-se vessels were wictkcd on the Ba- 
hama islands in IKM and ISH4, and the third was 
driven by stress of weather into a nori of Ihe island 
id" Bermuda in I8.'i5. In each ot these cn.ses, the 
slaves on board were liberated by the interference 



13 



of the colonial authorities, and were finally lost to 
their owners. On all these occasions, strong rep 
reseniaiions were addressed by the Governineni of 
the United States to thatol'Greai Britain, coin|)lain- 
in;,' of the improper and unlawful inierlereiice of 
the local authorities of the islands, and demanding 
indemnity to the owners of the liberated slaves. 
The British Government, in IS'M, linally agreed 
to render coin|)ensaiion to the owners of the .slaves 
in the cases oli he Uomct and the Kncomium, buia/j- 
solukly refused it in the case of the Enlerjirise. 
The ground on which this discrimination was 
made, was — thai, at the time ot the disasters to the 
Comet and the Encomium, the slate of slavery still ex- 
isted in the British colonies, and the rights of Amer- 
ican slave-owners might, therefore, be recognised 
under British law; but, ai the perioti when the /.'w 
tei prise was driven by stress of weitherinto Port 
Hamilton, the act of the British Parliament for 
the "abolition of slavery throughout the colonies" 
had taken efiect, and thenceforward there could 
be, lawfully, no property in slaves in any part of 
the British dominions. Lord Palmerston, in an- 
nouncing to Mr. Stevenson, by his note o( 7ih Jan- 
uary, 1837, the final decision of ihe British Govern- 
ment on the case of the Enterprise, added, that 
"slavery being now aboli.vhed throughout the Brit 
ish empire, there can be no well founded claim on 
the part of any foreigner, in respect of slaves who, 
under any circumstances, may come iuio the British 
colonies, any more than there would he in respect 
to slaves who might come into the United King- 
dom;" and this declaration he emphatically repeated 
in a sub.sequent note to Mr. Stevenson of the 11th 
December, 1837. 

Upon the important question of public law in- 
volved in this decision of the British Government, 
a long and earnest discussion look place between 
the two Governments; but terminating, as ii began, 
in a wide and irreconcilable difference of principle, 
the American minister at London was insirucied 
lo propose to the British Government a conven- 
tional arrangement, by which, in practice, the offi- 
cious and exciting inierference of the local auihor- 
ities of the British islands with American vessels 
having slaves on board, when driven into their 
waters by casualties of the sea, might be prevented. 
This arrangement was, also, very summarily de- 
clined by the British Government, as will be seen 
by Lord Palmeiston's note to Mr. Stevenson, of the 
3'Olh of September, 1838. And thus the mailer 
stood down lo the close ot Mr. Van Buren's admin- 
istration. The recent cases of the "Creole" and 
the "Hermosa"— one of them marked by incidents 
of a most revolting character — have added fresh 
proofs of the necessity of some undersianding be 
tween the two GovernmenLs on this delicate sub- 
ject, in order to preserve the relations of peace and 
good neighborhood; and the cturespondence which 
is laid before us has taken place with a view to ef- 
fect such an undersianding, on the basis of a just 
interpretation of the law and comiiy of nations. 

The Government of the United Stales contends 
that, under the modern practice and comity of civil- 
ized stales, the merchant-vessels of a naiion — con- 
sidered always as a part of its territory, while on 
the high seas, and subject exclusively to the laws 
andsovereigntyof their own country on the ocean — 
retain their national jurisdiction and immunity, to 
many purposes, in the ports of a foreign power, 
even when they enter those ports voluntarily. But 
when ihey ^xi forced, by st^e^s of weather, or un- 



lawful violence, against the will of the inas'er, into 
a foreign port, they are to be considered, in justice, 
as if they were still up.m tin* high seas, and, during 
ihe existence of such involuntary eiutigeiicy, vir- 
tually under the jurisdiciion of iheir own country, 
by whose laws ihe condition and reladims i.>\ ail 
persons and things on boaid are to be governed; 
and any inlerleicnce by the local aulhoiilirs of the 
foreign pon, in such a ca.'^e, Ui change thai coiuli- 
tion,or lodistuib those relations, is a proceeding 
contrary to the law and comity ol' nations. These 
principles are enforced and illustrated with great 
copiousness and ability by the Secreiaiy of State, 
in his letter lo Lord Ashhurion; and proceeding to 
apply ihem to the case of slaves on board of Amer- 
ican vessels forced by stress of weather, or other 
causes, into British ports, he says: 

"Tlie usuiil mode of ."la'jrig Ihe rule of Enslnli Uw ia. that 
iiosdOi'ei ildeH a sldvu leacli the tthore ol Eiigl^iinl ilian lie i« 
free. Ttiiu is true; hui it means no more ihaii il);it, wImi a 
.•^lave cofnes within the exclusive jurisdiciion of Knslanil, he 
■ eases lo be a slave, hecanse tlie law of Enelanil pn.tiiively and 
ni)liiniiusly prohibits and I'orbi'is ihe exisienre <i< such a rela- 
iion lietweeii m;iii and man. But ii does not mean that English 
auihorillPa, with ihi.i rnlf of Eigli.^h law m ihcir lia> ds, may 
(tiler while the jurisdiciion of anolhrr rtalion is acknmcl- 
fijged to exist, ami there destroy righ;s, nhhaaiiiMit;, and mier- 
e.'sts, lawdilly existing under the authority ol sucM oher nation. 
Nil 8ucli conRtrucimn, and no such tflecl, can he righilulljr 
given to ihe liritish law." 

He then adds: 

"If, therefore, vessels of the Unitnl States, pursuing lawful 
voyages from port to port, alonj their own shore, are driven 
by sirrss uf weather, or carried by unlawful violence, into Ei g- 
li.-ih ports, the Government of the United Stales .'an. ol consent 
iliat the local authorities in ihnge ports shall lake advanidge of 
such misfortunes, and enter them for the purpose ot int'-rtering 
with the condition ol persona or thinas on board, as esliiblished 
hv their own laws If slaves, the property of citizens of the 
United States, escape into the British teiniories, it is not expect- 
ed that they will be restored. In that case. Ihe lerritori d jnris- 
diciion of Ergland will have become exclusive over iliein. and 
must decide their condition. Wni'sHay ea on board of American 
vessels lying in British waters, are not within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of England, or under the exclusive operation of 
I'"nglish law; and this founds llie broad disimction between the 
cases." 'in the opinion of the Government of the United 
States, such vessels, so driven and so detained by necessity in 
a friendly port, ought to lie regaided as still fiursuing their 
original voynge. and turned out of their direct course only by 
disaster, or by wrongful violence; that they oueht to receive all 
assistance necessary lo enable them lo resume ihat direct course; 
and that interfereni-e and molestation by the local authorities, 
where the whole voyage is lawlul, both in fact and intent, is 
ground for just and grave complaint." 

Lord Ashburton, in his answer to Mr. Webster's 
note, beginsby remarking that," having left England 
before the case of the Creole had been brought to 
the notice of his Government by the American 
minister, he had not been empowered to enter into 
a formal stipulation" with respect to the class of 
cases to which it belongs ; but that he felt all thp 
importance of the subject, and the desirableness of 
falling upon some means for the prevention, in fu- 
ture, of such occurrences. "Upon the great gen- 
eral principles afl'ecting the case," he says, " we do 
not differ." And again he observes : " At the same 
time that we maintain ourown laws within tntr own 
territories, we are bound to respect those of our 
neighbors, and to li.sten to every possible suggestion 
of means of averting from them every annoyance 
and injury. I have great confidence thai this may be 
effcciunlly done in the present instance; but ihe case 
lo be met and remedied is new, and must not be too 
hastily dealt with. You may, however, be assured 
that measures so important for the preservation of 
friendly intercourse between the two countries shall 
not be neglected." 

" In the mean time," he says, " I can engage that 



14 



instructions shall be given to the Governors o! her 
Majes!y'> coluuies t)n the suuihcin burdeis ol' the 
Uniied riiales to execu'.e llieir own l;i\v:> with cane- 
fal aitention to the wish of ilieir Government to 
luainiain ?ood neiijhborhood ; and that there Nhall 
be iw I'lJicioiU inter fere nee xcilh American vessels 
driven bti ticcidtU or luj violence iiilothufc ports The 
lairs and dutiis of hospit'ditii shall Oc execuUd ; and 
these seem neither to require nor \ojustiJij am/ fur- 
ther imjiiisitton into the stale of persons or things on 
hoard of r''ssels so siJiuited, than may be indispensa- 
ble to enforce the observance of the municipal law 
of the ( ulony, and the proper regulation of its har- 
bttrs cjnd waters." 

These declarations and engagements, in iheir 
spirit and obvious import, go far towards giving ns 
the practical security we have so long sought; and 
wanting only the formality o[ a. treaiy stipulation, 

firesent, in the plighted faith of an accredited pub- 
ic minister, aciing with the approbation and au- 
thoniv of his Government, a guaranty which all 
great nations regard as no less sacred and obliga- 
tory. Who that looks back upon the slate of this 
ques'.ion, as ii wa.-> left four years ago by the re- 
peated, peremptory, and unceremonious lepulses, 
which Mr. Van Buren's adminisiraiion mei with 
from Lord Palmerston on every branch of the sub 
ject, can fail to recosnise the important advance 
which a spirit of justice and conciliation, wisely 
consuhing the interests of peace and good neigh- 
borhood, has now made towards the uiiimate re- 
moval of one great cause of irritation and com- 
plaint in the relations of the two countries ^ 

Tha last subject treated of in the correspondence 
which has been laid before us, is the great and vi- 
tal question of impressment. Nothing, through a 
a large portion of our history, had exercised so em- 
bittering and disturbing an inlluence on the rela- 
tions of England and America as the ancient, and, 
we miy trust, now fibsolete pretension ot impress- 
ing Bri ish seatnen (and, under that name, in very 
many instances, our own citizens) from onboard the 
merchant vessels of the United States. It was fit- 
ting, therefore, in seeking to establish the pence of 
the two countries on durable foundations, by the 
adjustment of so many questions of present inter- 
est, to anticipate the consequences which would in- 
evitably att'-nd the revival of a pretension so re 
rolling to the national sensibilities, in the event of 
another European war; and to declare, fr.'.nkly and 
beforehand, to the British Government, that it was 
a practice which would henceforward never be 
submitted to, but would be promptly resisted at 
every hazard, if it should be attempted to be re- 
newed. This declaration, at the moment of ter- 
minating a negotiation which, it was hoped, would 
consolidate a pcrmam-nt tjood unders anding be- 
tween the two countrie-;, was due to the spirit of 
frankness and manly dealing, anil called for by the 
true interests of peace. It was to be made, as the 
Secretary of Slate remarks in his letter to Lord 
Ashhurton, "not to revive useless recollections, or 
tostirthe einhers from lireswhich have been, in a 
great decree, smothered by many years ol peace; 
but to extm?uish those hres eflectually, belore new 
incidents aro."^e to fan ihein into (lame." 

The Secretary of Siato, therefore, addressed a 
note to Lord Ashb'irton, in which he reviews and 
analyses with great clearnev^ tip' ijicdinds on wln<:li 
the British doctrine of impr<'ssiiieni rests; and, at 
ter demmstrating witli '■onfluMve and irresistible 
force that it has no luundation whatever in any 



principle of the common and recognised law of na- 
tions, however countenanced by the municipal code 
of England, he proceeds to declare that the Govern- 
ment of the United States, after the iriost mature 
deliberation on the subject, "is prepared to say 
that the practice of impressing seamen from Amer- 
ican vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take 
place;'" that "it is found»^d on principles wiiich the 
United Stales do not recognise, and is invariably at- 
icn''.cd by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and 
ol such formidable magnitude, as cannot be submit- 
trdto;"{hM the rule laid down by Mr. Jeflferson, 
when Secretary of S^;!te, in the origin of the discus- 
sions between the two Governments on this subject 
— to wit: that "the vessel being American, shall be 
evidence that the seamen on board are such" — will 
hereafter be inflexibly maintained by this Govern- 
ment; and that, "in every regularly documented 
American merchant vessel, the crew u^ho navigate it 
will find thnr protection in tlu; flug which is over 
l/iem." Here, at least, is a declaration worthy the 
character of a Government conscious both of its 
rights, and of i s power to maintain them, and 
which will find an echo in every American bosom. 

Lord Ashburton, in acknowledging the receipt 
of Mr. Webster's note, recognisfs the propriety, 
111 a season of peace, of anticipating and guarrling 
against "c en possible causes of future disagree- 
inent," especially in relation to "so grave a subject 
of past irritation" as that of impressment; and al- 
though without nutliority to enter upon its "seltle- 
meni" during the limited cotiiinuance of his mis- 
sion, he entertains a confident hope that the task 
may be accomplished, when undertaken with a 
spirit ol candor and conciliation. After adverting 
to the "opposite principles maintained by the two 
countries respecting allegiance to the sovereign," 
he admits that a "serious practical question ^oes 
arise, or rather has existed, from practices former- 
ly attending the mode of manning the British 
navy, in times of war;" that those practices were 
attended "with injuries of an extent and importance 
so formidable" as to call lor a "remedy;" and that 
he has "much reason to hope thai a satisiactory ar- 
rangement may be made, so as <o set at rest all ap- 
prehension and anxiety." 

Now, sir, 1 must say that, considering the mark- 
ed contrast Ijctween the matter as- well as the lone 
of Lord Ashburton 's note, and the manner in 
which every allusion to the subject of iinpress- 
inent has heretofore been invariably met by the 
British Government, I cannot but regard it as a 
wise and honorable abandonment of this odious 
pretension, under the influence of a more calm 
and enlightened public opinion, and the progress 
which sounder principles of public law have hap- 
pilv made in the world since the return of general 
jicace. 

It is true that Lord Ashburton says that the 
"laws of Great Britain have maintained, from all 
time, the docirino of perpetual allegiance;" and 
that, in virtue of these laws, "all subjects of the 
Crown are, in case of necessity, bound to serve 
their country; and the.sea-faririg man is na'u.nlly 
taken for the naval service." Now, to all this, as 
matter of English law and ICn^lish prerogative, 
we take no exception. But we say that the exe- 
cution of English law must be coniincd to English 
juris, liciioii; that, if Great Britain chooses to en- 
force this alleged oWigaiion of perpetual allegiance 
against her naiiiral-born subjects, who are se;\-far- 
ing men, she may do so, for aught we have to 



16 



say, by impressin? them while they nre wiihin the 
limits (if Eny;li.sh territory, and on board of Engli^li 
ships; but tiiat, if she attempts to du so IVom on 
board the shijis of other nations, she tres|)ass(^s 
beyond her jnrisdiciion, and viohites the law of 
nations. It is to be remarked that Lord Ashtiur- 
ton, keepini? this distinction clearly in view, while 
assertins: the right of the Crown to ilie services 
of its naiural-boin subjects as a doctrine of ihe 
Enujiish law, nowhere sets up a claim to enforce iliai 
service on l/ii<i.r<l.lhc vexsrls oj a foreii^n power — which 
is the f^isl of the whole coniroversy. 

IIow dilFerent was the language of Lord Castle- 
reagh, when, shortly a ter the com?nenccment o( 
the latf war with Great Britain, the Government of 
ilie Uniteil Stales, anxious to arrest the fnrther ca- 
lamities of the conllict, authorized a profosition to 
be made, through Mr. Hnssell, to the British Gov 
eminent, assenting to a suspension of hostilities on 
iha condition of a repeal of the orders in coun<il, 
and that instructions should be immediately given 
to discontinue the impressment of persoMS from 
Atiiericnn ves.sels, and to restore the citizens of the 
United Stales already impres-ed; with the under- 
sinmling thai, in that case, a law would be passed 
by Congress to prohibit the employment of British 
seamen in the comtnercial or public service of the 
United States. Lord Casilereagh, in his answer to 
the proposition of Mr. Russell, thus nakedly and 
imperiously asserts the British claim of impress- 
mpnt: 

'I cannot refrain from cxpre^sinj my aui'prii'e ihat, as a con- 
dition preliminary ev»ri tn a suspension of liostilitic.i, tlie (Jov- 
friHiicni "t ihe United Smie., should have ihoiisht (it to demand 
lliHiilie Hi wish G,iT.;rniiicrit .shonld desist from its anrieui .inil 
acciist.imiMl pr.iciic.e Hf impressingr Briitsh seamen from the 
nurcliunt ihips of a foreign Statn, eimply on tlie assiiraiio*; 
that a |;iw shall hercalter he pass"d lo proliibit the employment 
of liritish seamiMi ja ilic public or comiuticial service of ilutt 
State." 

In the same spirit, when the American commis- 
sioners at Ghent, in their projet of a treaty, offered 
an article propLising only a .N?t5;/e?iiiow. of the prac- 
tice of impressment f a- a limited lime— accompanied, 
too, with a stipulation on our part to exclude British 
seamen from our naval and commercial service, 
and also to surrender deserters Irom their ships — 
the British commissioners dashed their pen through 
the article, simply writing the word "inadmissible" 
against it. 

When, instead of all this, we see an experienced 
and able British statesman, charged with the views 
of his Government, (VanKiy admitting the evils 
andinjuries attending this practice, refraining from 
any utiempt to justify it on grounds of international 
law, and expressing a confident belief that the sub- 
ject may be satisfactorily atljusted, — and this in an- 
swer to a formal representation Irom the American 
Government, remon.strating again.si the pretension 
as utterly indefensible in principle, and intolerable 
in practice, and calling for its total renunciation, — 
does so marked a change of tone, under such cir- 
cumstances, admit of any rea.sonable interpretation, 
but that the English nation and Government, under 
the influence of the moral and enlightened code 
which now controls the intercourse of nations, are 
prepared lo abandon a claim which can find no 
countenance or support in the principles of that 
code.* 



Whether, then, we look to the character of ihe 
treaty stipulations winch have been entered into, or 
lo the results of the correspondence between the 
representatives of the two Go\'eriinients, every 
sound view ()t till' inleiests and honor of the C(jun- 
liy etjually demands the acci;i)iance and ratification 
of the treaty. It is earnestly objected lo the ratifi- 
cation, that there has been no adjustment of our 
limits west of the Rocky mountain);. iMo-i cer- 
tainly it was greatly lo be desired ihat our import- 
ant lerriiorial lights in that region shtmld iiave wen 
definitively e.stal)lished. But, if it was lound im- 
practicable to come to an agreement on this sub- 
ject at present, (as the President informs us it was,) 
ought that to have been made a reason for decli- 
ning an adjustment of so many other important in- 
terests where an agreement was practicable and on 
whose imintdiate adjustment the harmony, and 
probably the peace, of two great nations was at 
slake. The tjuesliim of our Oregon territory, deep- 
ly interesting as it undoubtedly is, is not likely to 
sutler by wailing for a brief season ; and, in the 
meanwhile, the adjustment of other subjects of 
controveisy will enable us to give a more undi- 
vided attention to it, and to bring all our vigilance 
and resources to bear upon it. And here, sir, I 
must be permilied to protest against this great ques- 
tion being treated as peculiarly a WesteVn interest. 
It has the broadest possible national relations, ad- 
dressing itself to ihe pride and the interests of every 
portion of the Union ; and, for one, I beg leave to 
say I shall be found as impracticable, if I should 
have any voice in the matter, in yielding one " jot 
or tittle" of our just rights in regard to it, as any 
representative of Western interests on this floor. 
It is henceforward the sole unsettled point in our 
immense boundary stretching from sea to sea, 
which, till now, presented so many distracting 
points of controversy ; and we shall be the better 
able, in future, to concentrate the national solici- 
tude and guardianship upon it. 

I am sensible, Mr. President, what deep-rooted 
prejudices there are in some minds, surviving (un- 
consciously, perhaps) our former national conflicts, 
which oppose any settlement, however just and 
honorable, of our difficulties with England. But I 



The following e.xtract from the London Times, an enlight- 
ined and influeniial or^an of public opinion in England, and 
ispecially of the party now m power, published in October 
ast, (subsequently to the appearance of the correspondence 



between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton,) fully sustains Mr. 
liivcs'siii reference from Lord Ashburton'snote: 

" Mr. Wfibster is certaiidy right in contending that the evila 
of the system of impressment, as practised by this couiiiiy in 
toriner years, are greatly eniiaticed when it is attempted to en- 
force Its opi raiioiis beyond the natural limits of che territory 
and jurisdtctMii ol England and it.i dependencies. E.xcept as a 
belligerent right, nothing can le said in defence of it; and even 
as a belligerent right, it is altogether ditTetent from the practice 
of visiting neutral ships In search of the enemy's property. 
That right IS apart of the law of nations; it is a necessary 
part of m.iriiime warfare; and, in spue of occasional proiesia 
against ii. it has been asser ed and exercised by all great mari- 
time iS(»ic.s, and by none more than by the French themselves, 
in the best days of their naval renown. But, -ilthough a neutral 
e.vposes himself to risk by taking the enemy's goods on board, 
and becomes pro lanio an enemy, the circumstance of the 
voluntary presence of certain English sailors on board an 
American merchant ship is a very questionable ground for 
exercising a quasi hostile power in that vessel. For, be the 
municipal law of England what it may, in relation to a neutral 
Vessel, a Uritish ollicer has no claim to act under any other law 
■ than that which is recognised by the world, or conceded by 
special treaty. 

"There is. webelteve, a very strong probability that, in the 
event of awar.no iiistruciions for the'impressment of Iiriti8^ 
seamen found in American merchant vessels will be issued li 
our cruisers. The rii^hl is doubtful; the inexpedienct/ ( 
such a practice certain; nor can it be necessary for the Briti' 
navy to recruit its forces by such means It might, therefo 
he pnsiihie lo acctde to a dcctarntion to this effect, and 
renounce a practice which it is not intended lortTive.'' 



16 



appeal to Senators if ihis is an occasion on whichan 
lipaihies .«rtiiai sort shoulil be either indulged or in- 
voked. W hate ver ciui.sf we may have had, in former 
periods uf our history, u>eoinplain of the haughtiness i 
and injustice of England, in the present instance, at 
least, she has shown nothing but a spirit of concil- 
iation and peace. 1 profess to be not altoojether un- 1 
read in the hi>torT ofour eventful relaiions with that 
great power; and I take upon myself to say, that 
never before (_wiih thesinsjle exception «.f the .short 
administration of Mr. Fox, in IHiKI) has her Gov- 
ernment evinced so sincere a desire to establish and 
cement cordial and friendly relations with this 
country. Is it either (or our interest or our honor 
to repel such dispositions 1 

I know the just weight and authority which the 
opinions ol Mr. Jefferson on subjects of national 
policy have with many gentlemen on this floor. 
They will pardon me, therefore, if Icall their 
attention to some remarks of his, which, both for 
their spirit and their wisdom, seem to me full of 
instructive application to the present occasion. 
Writing to Mr. Monroe in ISOti, (then our minister 
in Lond"on,) and congratulating him on the prospect 
of a just settlement of our differences wiih Eng- 
land, which the known dispositions of ""ir. Fox, 
who'had just acceded to power, afforded, l.c says: 



"No two countries upon earth have so many pointa > 
inoii inierf-.t anil friemiKhip; and their rulere mustie b 
indttd, if, with nurh dinpusitivrvt, they Jjreak them f 
The only rivalry that can arise is on ihe ocean. If she ie 
us, conciliniory. and encuuragea Ihe sfnlimtnC of 
Ireling and conduct, It cuiinol luil to hclnend the ee; 
both" 

Shall we prove ourselves something wors 
the bunglers which Mr. Jefferson de.-cribe^, by 
setting aside a delicate aud laborious adjusir 
[long-standing diflerences, which the jusi ai 
ciliatory sentiments he invokes alone rei 
possible; and thus embroil anew two powe 
were but yesterday on the brink of a r 
I which must have involved the peace of tht 
iwiih their ownl Whatever the violence o 
feeling may suggest, the sober judgment o 
[kind will pronounce the arrangement whi 
I through so many difficulties, been at last e 
■a happy and providential event — above ; 
jachieveiTient of diplotnacy; and, hailing it 
I pledge of honorable peace, and of all the h 
terests of civilization and improvement coi 
with it, will hold to no light responsibility 
[either side of the Atlantic, who, by rudely 
ling it, from passion or caprice, would con 
[again to the excitements and the hazards ( 
newed and exacerbated controversy. 



e< 
in 
le 
•en 
>hh 
Mir 
eat I 
tin 
'i.lel 
The 
tc t<J 
aivir> 
; Brii. 
demo 
•cc tha 



S^^l 



W46 



